Re: RubyGems deciding version formats

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

On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 10:33:28AM +0000, Nik Clayton wrote:
> Luke Kanies wrote:
> >*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
> 
> Not to diminish your hate, but that's a pretty poor version number.  For a 
> start, You need special knowledge to compare it against other version 
> numbers.

Perhaps I have been poisoned by dpkg, but the sort order of such a
version number seems obvious to me.  I suppose it might be wrong though.

I can't put my finger on why I hate build numbers so much.  It seems
like somehow they end up replacing normal version numbers, and then
you're stuck with the same crap like giving your social security number
to identify yourself to a bank.

-josh

• Nik Clayton 10:33 on 10 Nov 2006
  • jrodman 10:47 on 10 Nov 2006
    • Roger Burton West 10:52 on 10 Nov 2006
• David Cantrell 14:30 on 10 Nov 2006
  • Philip Newton 14:40 on 10 Nov 2006
    • David Cantrell 15:09 on 10 Nov 2006
  • Sean O'Rourke 14:43 on 10 Nov 2006
    • Stephen Deken 14:54 on 10 Nov 2006
      • too deep to show
    • peter (Peter da Silva) 15:45 on 10 Nov 2006
  • Dave Hodgkinson 15:22 on 10 Nov 2006
  • Luke Kanies 17:02 on 10 Nov 2006
    • A. Pagaltzis 18:13 on 10 Nov 2006
• Sean O'Rourke 15:40 on 10 Nov 2006
  • David Cantrell 15:44 on 10 Nov 2006
  • Phil!Gregory 17:34 on 10 Nov 2006
    • jrodman 18:21 on 10 Nov 2006
  • Claes Jakobsson 21:01 on 10 Nov 2006
    • Sean O'Rourke 21:14 on 10 Nov 2006
    • A. Pagaltzis 09:18 on 11 Nov 2006
      • too deep to show

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