From: James Edward Gray II <james@...>
Date: 2006-11-20T01:13:04+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond.

On Nov 19, 2006, at 6:35 AM, Robert Dober wrote:

>
>
> On 11/16/06, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Letters in versions is not without precedent.
>
> Yes Eric , but I would consider 3.0.2b a subversion of 3.0.2 and I  
> would think 3.0.2b < 3.0.3
> I would correctly? assuem 3.0.2.b < 3.0.3.a of course, still I  
> guess I'll go with the 3.0.9 is followed by 3.0.10 and until all   
> dates are written in ISO format so that I can string compare them I  
> guess this should not really be an issue ;)

I'm pretty sure all of this is a non-issue.  Hasn't Matz said we wont  
exceed 1.8.9?  Or am I remembering that wrong?

James Edward Gray II