[Rubygems-developers] 0.4.0 bugfix release
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. :)
More information about the Rubygems-developers