[Rubygems-developers] [gemtacular] - a question

Chad Humphries chad at spicycode.com
Fri Jan 19 01:17:23 EST 2007


I've put in place a quick fix to the versions sort while I investigate the
Gem::Version this weekend.

-Chad

On 1/19/07, Chad Humphries <chad at spicycode.com> wrote:
>
> Cool, thanks for the tip Jim.  I'm enjoying rubygems more and more.  This
> project has made me understand a lot more about the internals of it.
>
> I'm moving the code to a public repo tomorrow so everyone can get a better
> look at it.
>
> -Chad
>
>
> On 1/19/07, Jim Weirich <jim at weirichhouse.org> wrote:
> >
> > Jim Freeze wrote:
> > > Nice site. BTW, I just noticed that it lists as my latest gem
> > > commandline-0.7.9, when it is actually commandline-0.7.10.
> > > In this case, it is a bit misleading on what the latest version is.
> >
> > Yes, it looks like it is doing a simple textual sort of the versions.  I
> > would recommend using the RubyGems Version object and sorting those.
> >
> > $ irb --simple-prompt
> > >> require 'rubygems'
> > => false
> > >> [Gem::Version.new("1.10"), Gem::Version.new("1.9")].sort.map { |t|
> > t.version }
> > => ["1.9", "1.10"]
> >
> >
> > -- Jim Weirich
> > _______________________________________________
> > Rubygems-developers mailing list
> > Rubygems-developers at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/attachments/20070119/d8481843/attachment.html 


More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list