Hi, On Nov 25, 2009, at 10:49 AM, Andrew Shebanow wrote:
> I agree with Wincent that avoiding '>' dependencies is a good strategy > for app developers. But I also have to note that the linux style odd/ > even version numbering scheme is not a good match with the gem version > numbering scheme we all have to live with for better or worse. Or, alternatively, haml could use a linux-style even/odd stable/dev scheme with the even/odd digit the _first_ digit in the version number. In the rubygems versioning scheme, backwards-incompatible changes are supposed to be indicated by changing the first digit[1]. AFAICT, the goal is to only introduce backwards-incompatible changes in haml in transitions like 2.2 -> 2.4 or 2.4 -> 2.6. This means (like the Linux kernel, I suppose) the first digit is going to be 2 forever. Why not just drop it? This would leave the other two digits to indicate new (backwards-compatible) features and bug fixes separately. You could start by making 2.4.0 => 4.0.0. Rhett [1]: http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/7 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Haml" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en.
