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
 
7rans  
View profile  
 More options Mar 2 2010, 2:59 pm
From: 7rans <transf...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2010 11:59:02 -0800 (PST)
Local: Tues, Mar 2 2010 2:59 pm
Subject: Re: gem yank prerelease
Print | View thread | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On Mar 2, 11:17 am, Chad Woolley <thewoolley...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 6:57 AM, 7rans <transf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > "bump the version" Huh? That exactly what I just said I did not want
> > to do.

> Just because you don't want to do it doesn't mean it isn't the right
> thing to do.

> From my perspective as a gem user, I don't want to trust you (or
> anyone, nothing personal) to not release the same version with
> breaking changes.  If you did, this would mean my previously working
> deploy suddenly stopped working when I downloaded the same gem version
> on a new machine.  That would be very bad.

No. A developer wouldn't repush a gem to break it or even to change it
in an incompatible way. They would do so to FIX it. The problem with
what you are suggesting is the your are perpetuating the use of non-
functional code.

This isn't about trusting a developer. You are implicitly not trusting
any developer by forcing them to bump a version and forcing them to
make any version no matter what be available for download.

Consider a scenario where an overlooked bug caused the current
directory to be completely deleted or some really bad bug like that.
You think that gem should still be available for people to use just
because it was released like that? Hell no! Not only should that bug
be fixed, but that entire chance of getting that code again should be
eradicated. And if such a gem was released recently, a repush is a
quick fix to stem the tide --and of course in such a bad case as this,
one should inform potential users right away.

> Weigh this against the cost of you bumping your version (which as John
> pointed out will be automated), and the choice is easy.  Make everyone
> bump the version.

> It seems that you are overly concerned about your 'broken' code
> existing in the wild.  That doesn't really matter.  EVERYBODY releases
> broken code.  It's open source, you are doing a great thing by
> releasing the code at all!  Congratulations!  If you have a bug, even
> in your release metadata; that's what a version bump (and release
> notes) are intended to address.

Clearly. But I am the developer and I want control over my projects. I
don't want others forcing me to do things certain ways if I decide
otherwise. That's always been part of the traditional Ruby mind --
Ruby gives you the rope to hang yourself. That's they way I want it to
be. That's why I use Ruby. It's like the 2nd Amendment.

>  It isn't a problem or a reflection on
> you at all.  Frequent releases are good.

I have never believed that. If that were really true, we'd release a
new versions every time our tests all passed. Releasing when it is
time to release is good.

> However, inadvertently breaking a feature with an innocuous 'fix',
> then rereleasing it over the previously-working version (thereby
> making the working version unavailable) IS a problem, and people
> should be prevented from doing it.

You have it completely backwards. You think you know better then the
developer that his gem is "previously-working" and the developer is
dumb enough to repush a broken 'fix'? So you, in your wisdom, are
going to save the dumb developer from himself by forcing him to push
that gem, you know the one "inadvertently breaking a feature with an
innocuous 'fix'", with a bumped version. And that's going to fix the
problem?

 
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