Re: RubyGems deciding version formats

[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/11/10]

From: Martin Ebourne
Subject: Re: RubyGems deciding version formats
Date: 07:42 on 10 Nov 2006
On Thu, 2006-11-09 at 20:12 -0600, Luke Kanies wrote:
> I currently spend all my time in Ruby, but I fortunately don't have  
> to deal much with RubyGems.  I say fortunately, because, like all  
> software, it's hate-worthy.  I personally think it's a bit more hate- 
> worthy than it should be, and here's an example.
> 
> Some people run released versions of my software.  Some people use  
> the software directly from Subversion.  It's important to know which  
> they're using when they're filing bugs, so I want some way to  
> differentiate them.  So, reasonably, I add 'svn' on to my version  
> number.
> 
> *I* don't mind.  Ruby doesn't mind.  But oh now, RubyGems declares  
> that I cannot have a version number that looks like that:
> 
> Malformed version number string 0.20.0-svn
> 
> Yeah, thanks.
> 
> This means I can't even use my Rakefile for anything, because it  
> can't even create the gem task (which it always does, even if it  
> won't be executing it).  Stupid gems.

So I've not even attempted to do any ruby programming. But I have done
endless amounts of programming in a dozen other languages.

That post was meaningless gibberish to me. I find it difficult to
believe that ruby has come up with such completely new concepts that
no-one else has ever even thought of that it needs to invent its own
natural language extensions just to talk about them.

Hates-mindless-software-obfuscation.

Martin.

Generated at 23:01 on 18 Nov 2006 by mariachi 0.52