[Rubygems-developers] Gem#status?

Chad Woolley thewoolleyman at gmail.com
Tue Nov 11 17:42:41 EST 2008

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 3:37 PM, Phil Hagelberg <technomancy at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hugh Sasse <hgs at dmu.ac.uk> writes:
> > Agreed, but we do have a tradition in the Ruby world about odd minor
> > version numbers
> Well, we *had* that tradition, but now Ruby 1.9.1 is going to be
> considered the stable release.
> > so another convention for what I've called tiddler numbers seems
> > possible. Staying numeric would be better.
> The problem with this is that it makes the number of digits
> significant. Rubygems doesn't currently force the use of three
> dot-separated parts. Most projects use that, but it's not enforced.

I'd venture to say that most gem owners don't follow the odd/even
convention.  Plus, with auto-generated gems (like GitHub does), it's very
useful to use a timestamp as a component of your version (optionally
prefixed with an IRB-sortable non-numeric character).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/attachments/20081111/9744b44a/attachment.html>

More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list