> On Mar 1, 10:58 am, Chad Woolley <thewoolley...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Nick Quaranto <n...@quaran.to> wrote:
> > > I need to mull this over a bit more, but I think this could be
> acceptable...
> > > 1) Gem yank allows you to quickly 'undo' a release. Since this wasn't
> > > possible before, you usually had to repush or ask us to remove it
> manually.
> > > 2) You're not going to run out of version numbers, and pushing is
> > > ridiculously fast.
> > > 3) We could take a SHA of the incoming .gem, and make sure on a new gem
> push
> > > that SHA hasn't been pushed, thereby enforcing atomic versions.
> > > 4) On a 'repush' we could display a message saying why and telling the
> user
> > > to bump the patch version, and the command to yank that version if need
> be.

> > +1

> > Good compromise.  Yes, versions are unlimited, and if you screwed up
> > the metadata, just bump, re-release, and write down the steps so you
> > don't screw up next time.  Allowing people to overwrite a version, for
> > any reason, is a bad idea...

> Yea, but it's my "bad" idea, not yours. If I catch a bug within a
> short period after a new release and I haven't posted any sort of
> announcement about it I will re-push. It's not that big of a deal,
> especially for small, fairly new, and not widely used gems.

> > I also like the compromise for deletion.  The only way to permanently
> > delete it is to ask you, and even in that case users should still have
> > a .gem file hanging around somewhere that they can republish on their
> > own.  As long as there is no re-push of same version, this will work
> > out fine.

> This is silly. When a developer wants a version deleted it is b/c HE
> HAS A DAMN GOOD REASON. And that reason is almost always that the
> version is BROKEN. As a developer I don't want broken code out there
> if I can help it. Besides that, except for major projects like Rails,
> most people just upgrade to newest versions of a gem no matter what.
> Most old versions soon become a waste of space.

> Sure, but this is very straightforward.  Yank the bad one.  Bump the