[Rubygems-developers] 0.4.0 bugfix release

Chad Fowler chad at chadfowler.com
Mon May 31 19:08:59 EDT 2004


On 31/5/2004, at 7:09 PM, Jim Weirich wrote:

> Chad Fowler wrote:
>> On 31/5/2004, at 6:08 PM, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
>>> 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?
>
> Suppose version 1.2 of a package introduces some forward compatible 
> additions to the API.  My program needs the new features.
>
>    require_gem package, "= 1.*"   # allows version 1.1
>    require_gem package, "*>= 1.2" # doesn't allow 1.1
>
> I think the * convention is intuitive, but lacks expressive power.  I 
> don't currently favor it
>
>

Makes sense.  I say go with what feels good now and let's see how it 
looks after you check it in.  I bet we can all agree. :)

Chad



More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list