From: "Carina C. Zona" <cczona@...>
Date: 2011-11-13T01:29:26+09:00
Subject: Re: referring to version numbers in a gem

So do Rails, ActiveRecord, Rack, NokoGiri, Cucumber, among others.
<http://stackoverflow.com/questions/7532285/which-format-should-the-version-constant-of-my-project-have>

Steve Klabnick recommends the same.  He also recommends putting that
library's VERSION constant into a version.rb.
<http://timelessrepo.com/making-ruby-gems>

Which likewise is the approach Rails uses.

<http://guides.rubyonrails.org/initialization.html#railties-lib-rails-version-rb>


On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 12:25 AM, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 11, 2011, at 20:20 , Chad Perrin wrote:
>
>> Using a constant could prove problematic.  As I said in an earlier
>> response:
>>
>>    I'm using the Gem::Version thing for now in part because I've seen
>>    cases where for some reason a VERSION constant conflicts with
>>    something else in the Ruby environment.  I haven't seen it in quite a
>>    while, but I don't want to have to deal with that kind of issue.
>
> According to my stats, I've got 526 releases that all use this pattern and I've never once had a problem with using the VERSION constant. "could prove problematic" sounds like urban legend to me more than a real issue.
>
>
>



-- 
  Carina