[#4567] Re: What's the biggest Ruby development? — Aleksi Niemel<aleksi.niemela@...>

Dave said:

18 messages 2000/08/23
[#4568] Q's on Marshal — Robert Feldt <feldt@...> 2000/08/23

[#4580] RubyUnit testcase run for different init params? — Robert Feldt <feldt@...> 2000/08/25

[#4584] Re: RubyUnit testcase run for different init params? — Dave Thomas <Dave@...> 2000/08/25

Robert Feldt <feldt@ce.chalmers.se> writes:

[#4623] Re: RubyUnit testcase run for different init params? — Robert Feldt <feldt@...> 2000/08/28

On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#4652] Andy and Dave's European Tour 2000 — Dave Thomas <Dave@...>

24 messages 2000/08/30
[#4653] Re: Andy and Dave's European Tour 2000 — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2000/08/30

Hi,

[#4657] Ruby tutorials for newbie — Kevin Liang <kevin@...> 2000/08/30

Hi,

[ruby-talk:04400] Re: New Require (was: RAA development ideas (was: RE: Looking for inp ut on a 'links' page))

From: Dave Thomas <Dave@...>
Date: 2000-08-10 12:29:49 UTC
List: ruby-talk #4400
Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <hgs@dmu.ac.uk> writes:

> This seems useful to me.  The only thing I see missing from this is
> 
> We want version 1.3.4 or newer, but we know that we don't want
> 1.3.8, because that only lasted 6 hours until the bug (that slipped
> throgh the regression tests) breaking earlier working code was
> found.  But we don't want to force users of 1.3.{4,5,6,7} to
> upgrade.


A while back we had a thread where I suggested a kind of super-require 
that would go and fetch packages automatically on request, but this
was generally thought to be a bad idea. The stuff I'm suggesting here
doesn't do that; it simply uses whatever it finds in your RUBYPATH,
just as 'require' does now.

So, if 1.3.8 has a bug, and you happened to be unlucky enough to
download it for the 6 hours it was available, I guess you download
1.3.9 and the problem goes away. I don't see how else we can do it: we 
can't assume we're online, so we can't go query the RAA, and previous
versions of a package can't predict that 1.3.8 will be a bad-un.

Or am I (yet again) missing the point?


Regards


Dave

In This Thread