[Rubygems-developers] Advice on version numbers for alpha
ryand-ruby at zenspider.com
Wed Aug 24 02:10:17 EDT 2005
On Aug 18, 2005, at 5:58 PM, Lothar Scholz wrote:
> Hello Lyle,
> 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
>>> 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 "126.96.36.199" 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.
505 % gem list --remote RubyToC
*** REMOTE GEMS ***
Ruby (subset) to C translator.
I do /major\.minor\.bug ((alpha|beta) release)?/ (where major, minor,
bug, and release all /\d+/)
Since I can't do "alpha" or "beta" I have to strip it for the gem
More information about the Rubygems-developers