> 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...

> 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.