Forum: Ruby on Rails No 1.0 for Rails

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Kyle M. (Guest)
on 2005-12-13 01:47
(Received via mailing list)
We should consider staying with the 0.x.x version numbering for a
variety of reasons, but really it boils down to one main reason: Beta
is the new in thing.  I'm typing this message from Gmail(beta)  Beta
says that you are on the cutting edge, that you're "with it."

With futher consideration, I believe that we should further revise the
system to use negative version numbers.  This will futher underscore
that Rails is moving in a new direction, one never seen before in the
history of IT.  I hope we can come together as a community and label
the next version of Rails " - 0.0.0.15 "

Kyle
Warren S. (Guest)
on 2005-12-13 02:11
(Received via mailing list)
And for vaporware - we can use imaginary numbers...

Warren S.
Joe (Guest)
on 2005-12-13 02:24
Kyle M. wrote:
> We should consider staying with the 0.x.x version numbering for a
> variety of reasons, but really it boils down to one main reason: Beta
> is the new in thing.  I'm typing this message from Gmail(beta)  Beta
> says that you are on the cutting edge, that you're "with it."
>
> With futher consideration, I believe that we should further revise the
> system to use negative version numbers.  This will futher underscore
> that Rails is moving in a new direction, one never seen before in the
> history of IT.  I hope we can come together as a community and label
> the next version of Rails " - 0.0.0.15 "
>
> Kyle

Negative numbers eh? OK, here's what I think of your idea:

-1 non-stupid non-trendy idea.

Joe
joebob briggs (Guest)
on 2005-12-13 02:46
Joe wrote:
> Kyle M. wrote:
>> We should consider staying with the 0.x.x version numbering for a
>> variety of reasons, but really it boils down to one main reason: Beta
>> is the new in thing.  I'm typing this message from Gmail(beta)  Beta
>> says that you are on the cutting edge, that you're "with it."
>>
>> With futher consideration, I believe that we should further revise the
>> system to use negative version numbers.  This will futher underscore
>> that Rails is moving in a new direction, one never seen before in the
>> history of IT.  I hope we can come together as a community and label
>> the next version of Rails " - 0.0.0.15 "
>>
>> Kyle
>
> Negative numbers eh? OK, here's what I think of your idea:
>
> -1 non-stupid non-trendy idea.
>
> Joe


heehee!!!
Zed A. Shaw (Guest)
on 2005-12-13 03:29
(Received via mailing list)
I prefer infinitesimals.  Even mathematicians think those are made up.

Zed A. Shaw
http://www.zedshaw.com/

On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:09:19 +0200
unknown (Guest)
on 2005-12-13 04:05
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Kyle M. wrote:

> We should consider staying with the 0.x.x version numbering for a variety of
> reasons, but really it boils down to one main reason: Beta is the new in
> thing.  I'm typing this message from Gmail(beta)  Beta says that you are on
> the cutting edge, that you're "with it."
>
> With futher consideration, I believe that we should further revise the
> system to use negative version numbers.  This will futher underscore that
> Rails is moving in a new direction, one never seen before in the history of
> IT.  I hope we can come together as a community and label the next version
> of Rails " - 0.0.0.15 "

at the risk of appearing combative - may i ask if you are actively
submitting
patches?  if so disregard the following:

let's not forgot that 1.0, like all the other versions, will be free and
open.

kind regards.

-a
--
===============================================================================
| ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
| all happiness comes from the desire for others to be happy.  all misery
| comes from the desire for oneself to be happy.
| -- bodhicaryavatara
===============================================================================
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2005-12-13 05:26
(Received via mailing list)
Is my calendar broken or something? I could have sworn we've done
Halloween and Thanksgiving, are getting ready for Christmas and New
Years, and are doing preliminary planning for Valentine's Day and St.
Patrick's Day? Did I miss *all* of those and go straight to April Fool's
Day?

<ducking>
Jerrett T. (Guest)
on 2005-12-13 22:28
(Received via mailing list)
I weep for humanity.
Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov (Guest)
on 2005-12-14 01:48
(Received via mailing list)
On 13-dec-2005, at 0:45, Kyle M. wrote:

> We should consider staying with the 0.x.x version numbering for a
> variety of reasons, but really it boils down to one main reason: Beta
> is the new in thing.  I'm typing this message from Gmail(beta)  Beta
> says that you are on the cutting edge, that you're "with it."
>
> With futher consideration, I believe that we should further revise the
> system to use negative version numbers.  This will futher underscore
> that Rails is moving in a new direction, one never seen before in the
> history of IT.  I hope we can come together as a community and label
> the next version of Rails " - 0.0.0.15 "

Actually it would also need it's own build of Subversion which will
basically _remove_ entries from the changelog (because it is less
software) and going to count the revisions backwards, so that Rails
-1.4 can also sport a shiny -3200 revision number.

When the revisions will cross zero you will be able to say that Rails
has done a complete iteration.


--
Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov
me at julik.nl
Justin F. (Guest)
on 2005-12-14 05:02
(Received via mailing list)
Kyle M. wrote:
> We should consider staying with the 0.x.x version numbering for a
> variety of reasons, but really it boils down to one main reason: Beta
> is the new in thing.  I'm typing this message from Gmail(beta)  Beta
> says that you are on the cutting edge, that you're "with it."
>
> With futher consideration, I believe that we should further revise the
> system to use negative version numbers.  This will futher underscore
> that Rails is moving in a new direction, one never seen before in the
> history of IT.  I hope we can come together as a community and label
> the next version of Rails " - 0.0.0.15 "

You are too late!

   http://www.rubyonrails.org/

regards

   Justin
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.