[Rubygems-developers] 0.4.0 bugfix release

Chad Fowler chad at chadfowler.com
Mon May 31 18:41:50 EDT 2004


On 31/5/2004, at 6:08 PM, Gavin Sinclair wrote:

> On Tuesday, June 1, 2004, 6:17:45 AM, Chad wrote:
>
>>> So, I'm proposing two changes ...
>>>
>>> (A) implement multiple requirements, e.g.
>>>         require_gem package, ">= 1.2", "< 2.0"
>>> All requirements must be true for a package to satisfy the require.
>>>
>>> (B) Implement a pessimistic greater-than version operator.
>>> Suggestions for the operator include "*>", ">>", "<*>"
>>>
>>> I think both (A) and (B) are useful.  (A) is more general and 
>>> includes
>>> the (B) case, but I think you still want (B) from a convenience
>>> standpoint.
>>>
>>> I have a private implementation of (B) already working and I have
>>> started on (A).  I can commit these if there is general approval on
>>> this list.
>>>
>>> -
>
>> I strongly approve of (A) and mostly approve with (B).  My only minor
>> objection is that the symbols for the operators don't look intuitive 
>> to
>> me.  But, I can't think of a better idea.  I would be in favor of
>> releasing both in the next RubyGems release and seeing what the
>> community thinks.  My guess is that both would be used infrequently 
>> and
>> that (A) would be used more than (B), but that's not a reason not to
>> include them.
>
>> So, my vote is to commit.
>
> What happened to "1.*"?
>

Good question.  I think "1.*" would make (B) more palatable.  Jim, has 
your taste changed or does "1.*" fail in some functional way?

Chad



More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list