On Jan 18, 2008 6:39 PM, Wayne E. Seguin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 18, 2008 9:44 AM, Sharon Rosner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have a question regarding version numbers for the different parts of > > sequel: right now each gem has its own version and to me it seems a > > bit weird. Should we use the same version number for the three gems, > > or is it OK to keep it as it is? > > > > Sharon, > > After some extensive thought, I think that it is best to leave as three > separate revisions and evolve each as they grow separately. >
I'll suggest sequel_model gem stick to specific version of sequel_core, in that way, will avoid some conflicts that could be introduced. sequel_core >= X.Y.Z, < X.W.M Just a comment, after being dealing with some gems that depend on specific versions that didn't play nice when dealing with updated gems. Regards, -- Luis Lavena Multimedia systems - A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools. Douglas Adams --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sequel-talk" 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/sequel-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
