On Oct 31, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Ashley Moran wrote: > > On Oct 31, 2007, at 4:53 pm, David Chelimsky wrote: > >> We're going to a release model in which 1.odd.x will be considered >> experimental. This means that while we will document code-breaking >> changes in subsequent releases (so you know what to do to move >> forward), we will not commit to backwards compatibility to these >> releases. > > > I've always been puzzled by this way of handling beta releases, which > quite a few open source projects follow. What's the thinking behind a > 1.odd, 1.even pattern, as opposed to offering 1.x and trunk? (It's > not hard to fetch trunk and build a custom gem - I've got a seven line > script that does everything, including the TMBundle.) >
Can I get that! That sounds nice... (probably simpler than i think) >> When we're ready to commit to a given API, we'll release 1.2.0. After >> that we will be committed to backwards compatibility to 1.2.x (which >> will implicitly remain compatible with 1.0.x). > > If 1.1 introduces breaking changes, but 1.2 is backwards-compatible > with 1.0, what happens to the API changes that appear in 1.1? > > Ashley > > > -- > blog @ http://aviewfromafar.net/ > linked-in @ http://www.linkedin.com/in/ashleymoran > currently @ home > > _______________________________________________ > rspec-users mailing list > rspec-users@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list rspec-users@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
