[Rubygems-developers] 0.4.0 bugfix release
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
>>> the (B) case, but I think you still want (B) from a convenience
>>> 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
>> 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
>> 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?
More information about the Rubygems-developers