From: Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
Date: 2006-11-17T05:02:53+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond.

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:

> 
> On Nov 16, 2006, at 6:47 AM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
> 
> > I've been thinking about how version numbers are restricting what we can do.
> > We are having difficulties releasing 1.8.x because x can only be in [6789]
> > before we run out of numbers.  Similarly, 1.9 will be the upper limit of
> > the 1.y series.
> 
> So what if we run out of numbers?
> 
> $ ruby -e 'p %w[1.8.0 1.8.8 1.8.9 1.8.a 1.8.b 1.8.z].sort'
> ["1.8.0", "1.8.8", "1.8.9", "1.8.a", "1.8.b", "1.8.z"]

The only problem I have with that is that .a and .b look like alpha
and beta releases, though customarily these are written 3.0.2b, etc, 
i.e. directly after a number....  And ruby-3.2.c as a executable name
to distinguish it from other versions, would confuse the heck out
of people, "A single source file for ruby-3.2???".
> 
> > [...]
> > 
> > Does the above seem reasonable?  Is it even sane :-) ?
> 
> I think it will be time to worry about that when we get to 1.x.x.

Oh, and that's another: that looks like a wildcard for version 1
releases. 
<Palin>The only THREE problems I have with that</Palin> :-)
> 
> -- 
> Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
> This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant
> 
> http://trackmap.robotcoop.com
> 

        Hugh