[Rubygems-developers] Advice on version numbers for alpha
scholz at scriptolutions.com
Thu Aug 18 20:58:52 EDT 2005
Friday, August 19, 2005, 12:50:21 AM, you wrote:
LJ> On 8/18/05, Jim Weirich <jim at weirichhouse.org> wrote:
>> RubyGems versions are all numeric by design, so there is no way to append
>> an "alpha" or "beta" designation. I tend to use 3 digit versions for
>> official releases and 4 digit versions for releases between official
LJ> For some reason, I didn't realize that four-digit version numbers were
LJ> allowed. Are there any examples of this in the wild? The RubyGems
LJ> documentation (at docs.rubygems.org) doesn't appear to have any
LJ> examples. When you're doing an update of gems using this numbering
LJ> scheme, is a gem with version number "188.8.131.52" considered newer than a
LJ> gem with version number "1.4.0"? How does the comparison work?
What about using a 2 digit schema for normal and 3 digit for alpha.
There are already a few out there that do just this but i've never
seen a 4 digit version.
Lothar Scholz mailto:scholz at scriptolutions.com
More information about the Rubygems-developers