Hi All...
We've fixed a couple of small but nasty bugs on 0.6.0. We're doing a small point-release in support of a couple of developers who would like to go ahead and release gems but are crippled by these problems. Excuse the traffic (and the need to redownload RubyGems), but please do grab the latest:
http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=126
Thanks to everyone who has given us bug reports, feature ideas, and CODE so far!
Chad (for the RubyGems team)
Hi All...
We've fixed a couple of small but nasty bugs on 0.6.0. We're doing a
small point-release in support of a couple of developers who would like
to go ahead and release gems but are crippled by these problems.
Excuse the traffic (and the need to redownload RubyGems), but please do
grab the latest:http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=126
Thanks to everyone who has given us bug reports, feature ideas, and
CODE so far!
Chad (for the RubyGems team)
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Chad Fowler wrote:
--
Something minor but I just noticed that gem doesn't seem to support a --version
tag. I see it has it on --rubygems-info but maybe --version should alias that
or something. Not critical or anything but seems to make more sense to me.
Charles Comstock
I agree, but we're using --version to specify gem versions. I think
it makes sense to minimize typing for this operation as opposed to
finding out the rubygems version, since the former will be used a lot
more. Do you think we need to alias --rubygems-version or something?
Chad
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:43:37 +0900, Charles Comstock <cc1@cec.wustl.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004, Chad Fowler wrote:
> Hi All...
>
> We've fixed a couple of small but nasty bugs on 0.6.0. We're doing a
> small point-release in support of a couple of developers who would like
> to go ahead and release gems but are crippled by these problems.
> Excuse the traffic (and the need to redownload RubyGems), but please do
> grab the latest:
>
> http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=126
>
> Thanks to everyone who has given us bug reports, feature ideas, and
> CODE so far!
> Chad (for the RubyGems team)
>
>
>
>--
Something minor but I just noticed that gem doesn't seem to support a --version
tag. I see it has it on --rubygems-info but maybe --version should alias that
or something. Not critical or anything but seems to make more sense to me.
Charles Comstock
Chad Fowler wrote:
Something minor but I just noticed that gem doesn't seem to support a
--version tag. I see it has it on --rubygems-info but maybe --version
should alias that or something. Not critical or anything but seems to
make more sense to me.
I agree, but we're using --version to specify gem versions. I think it
makes sense to minimize typing for this operation as opposed to finding
out the rubygems version, since the former will be used a lot more. Do
you think we need to alias --rubygems-version or something?
Not sure what you mean there, Chad. gem --version currently does nothing,
and I don't know what "we're using --version to specify gem versions"
means.
Hang on, the penny just dropped. I left my mistake in there to
demonstrate that in my mind specifying a version on the gem command-line
is a very rare experience to me. When I want to install a specific
version of something I use, for instance:
gem -i pqa-0.5
Of course there's
gem -i pqa --version '< 0.7'
but like I say, I never really have a use for that.
Thus I support using --version to convey information about RubyGems, as
anyone accustomed to command-line tools will expect that.
Gavin
[cut]
> Something minor but I just noticed that gem doesn't seem to support a --version
> tag. I see it has it on --rubygems-info but maybe --version should alias that
> or something. Not critical or anything but seems to make more sense to me.
> Charles Comstock
>
>I agree, but we're using --version to specify gem versions. I think
it makes sense to minimize typing for this operation as opposed to
finding out the rubygems version, since the former will be used a lot
more. Do you think we need to alias --rubygems-version or something?
Oh I didn't even see that use of version. Hmm. Maybe if there is no
other options and you get version it should spit out the version info?
I can't think of how that would be incompatible, course it might be
slightly confusing if it was documented, but it would get the standard
console app behavior one would expect. Just a thought.
Charlie
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004, Chad Fowler wrote:
On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 11:43:37 +0900, Charles Comstock <cc1@cec.wustl.edu> wrote:
Chad Fowler wrote:
I agree, but we're using --version to specify gem versions. I think
it makes sense to minimize typing for this operation as opposed to
finding out the rubygems version, since the former will be used a lot
more. Do you think we need to alias --rubygems-version or something?
There has been some talk about rearranging the gem option structure to mirror cvs, e.g. gem install --remote, or gem list --local. Cvs will differentiate between options on the "cvs" command, and options on the sub-commands. In that case, we could support both ...
gem --version
and
gem install gem-name --version ">= 1.0"
BTW, I favor the move to a cvs-like command structure (if anyone asks).
--
-- Jim Weirich jim@weirichhouse.org http://onestepback.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)
Thus I support using --version to convey information about RubyGems, as
anyone accustomed to command-line tools will expect that.
Quick follow-up with suggestion.
-V, --gem-version Specify version of gem to perform operation on
-v, --version Show RubyGems version and exit
I think that's pretty reasonable. Now what about --rubygems-info? Keep
it as it is? Roll it into --version and get rid of it?
I favour getting rid of --rubygems-info (it's awkward to type) and just
having
-v, --version Display RubyGems information and exit
What sayeth the mob?
Gavin
Yea, that would really help in this case, wouldn't it?
Chad
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:35:14 +0900, Jim Weirich <jim@weirichhouse.org> wrote:
Chad Fowler wrote:
> I agree, but we're using --version to specify gem versions. I think
> it makes sense to minimize typing for this operation as opposed to
> finding out the rubygems version, since the former will be used a lot
> more. Do you think we need to alias --rubygems-version or something?There has been some talk about rearranging the gem option structure to
mirror cvs, e.g. gem install --remote, or gem list --local. Cvs will
differentiate between options on the "cvs" command, and options on the
sub-commands. In that case, we could support both ...gem --version
and
gem install gem-name --version ">= 1.0"
oh please do this, for what my opinion as a gem user is worth 
il Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:35:14 +0900, Jim Weirich <jim@weirichhouse.org> ha scritto::
BTW, I favor the move to a cvs-like command structure (if anyone asks).
I guess I'm not the mob, but I would advocate --rubygems-version
replacing --rubygems-info. I use the --version flag on a regular
basis, but there is definitely something to be said for consistency
with other tools (which I think would also make the case for doing
away with --help-options in favor of --help.
Chad
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 11:13:34 +0900, Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> wrote:
> Thus I support using --version to convey information about RubyGems, as
> anyone accustomed to command-line tools will expect that.Quick follow-up with suggestion.
-V, --gem-version Specify version of gem to perform operation on
-v, --version Show RubyGems version and exitI think that's pretty reasonable. Now what about --rubygems-info? Keep
it as it is? Roll it into --version and get rid of it?I favour getting rid of --rubygems-info (it's awkward to type) and just
having-v, --version Display RubyGems information and exit
Yes it would, and would help with the growing number of commands and the
size of the returned --help data.
On 6/10/04 8:23 AM, "Chad Fowler" <chadfowler@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Jun 2004 19:35:14 +0900, Jim Weirich <jim@weirichhouse.org> wrote:
Chad Fowler wrote:
I agree, but we're using --version to specify gem versions. I think
it makes sense to minimize typing for this operation as opposed to
finding out the rubygems version, since the former will be used a lot
more. Do you think we need to alias --rubygems-version or something?There has been some talk about rearranging the gem option structure to
mirror cvs, e.g. gem install --remote, or gem list --local. Cvs will
differentiate between options on the "cvs" command, and options on the
sub-commands. In that case, we could support both ...gem --version
and
gem install gem-name --version ">= 1.0"Yea, that would really help in this case, wouldn't it?
Chad
Chad wrote:
I favour getting rid of --rubygems-info (it's awkward to type) and
just having-v, --version Display RubyGems information and exit
I guess I'm not the mob, but I would advocate --rubygems-version
replacing --rubygems-info. I use the --version flag on a regular
basis, but there is definitely something to be said for consistency with
other tools (which I think would also make the case for doing away with
--help-options in favor of --help.
Wouldn't you rather type -V than --version? Or is that not an intuitive
enough alias for --gem-version?
I think you're right about --help. I'll try a rearrangement in CVS and
see what you think.
Gavin