On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:03 PM, James Tucker <jftucker / gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 16 Sep 2010, at 11:57, elise huard wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 4:45 PM, James Tucker <jftucker / gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 16 Sep 2010, at 06:54, elise huard wrote:
>>>> - you could just reference a certain number of gems from ruby config
>>>> files, and the desired/tested version. this way the author can
>>>> continue work independently of ruby-core, and ruby core can also
>>>> approve or certify a certain version for a next release.   
>>>> reason to impose extra versioning IMHO.
>>>
>>> This is not true. Users will do `gem update` and shoot themselves in the foot. As one of the people who spends a lot of time on user support, I would be really really upset to see this kind of dangerous action. As Marcus points out, there are even issues with this as an approach for versioning between different rubies too. We can protect against a /portion/ of this with the required_ruby_version flag in the gemspec, but I at present I /believe/ that's only a minimum version marker. For this purpose it will need '=' or at least '~>' semantics or options to be sane.
>>
>> = means requiring an exact version of a gem.
>> http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/16
>
> Exactly.
>
OK, well I think I misunderstood your response.  I meant, meaning an
exact version, and I don't really see the problem with that.