Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon.
Switch to the new Google Groups.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
gemcutter
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
Message from discussion gem yank prerelease
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
John Trupiano  
View profile  
 More options Mar 1 2010, 10:56 am
From: John Trupiano <jtrupi...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 10:56:45 -0500
Local: Mon, Mar 1 2010 10:56 am
Subject: Re: [gemcutter] Re: gem yank prerelease
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 10:45 AM, Nick Quaranto <n...@quaran.to> wrote:
> I need to mull this over a bit more, but I think this could be
> acceptable...

> 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.

I don't think this is necessary.  As far as I'm concerned, there are no
problems associated with the same codebase being released as two different
version numbers.  The problem occurs when you try to release two different
codebases to the same version number.  Seems like unnecessary overhead to
me.

-John


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2012 Google