# Developmetn Releases on Rubyforge

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/developmetn-releases-on-rubyforge/97980>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [July 11, 2006, 7:57pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/developmetn-releases-on-rubyforge/97980 "2006-07-11T19:57:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 7:57pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/developmetn-releases-on-rubyforge/97980/1 "2006-07-11T19:57:02Z")

</div>

Wish there a way to mark a Rubyforge release as “official” so that a  
later development releases wouldn’t become the default package/gem.

What solutions to this do others use?  
T.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 8:22pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/developmetn-releases-on-rubyforge/97980/2 "2006-07-11T20:22:05Z")

</div>

On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid wrote:

> Wish there a way to mark a Rubyforge release as “official” so that a  
> later development releases wouldn’t become the default package/gem.
> 
> What solutions to this do others use?

Bad ones? i.e. not doing “development” releases often because I don’t  
want them to be seen as non-development releases.

I think Daniel’s suggestion – to not release a gem to RubyForge if it  
is  
a development release – is a good one. Other than that, I think it  
comes  
down to versioning and release naming as the only current options.

Kirk H.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/u/4bbf92/32.png) [@unknown](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/unknown)\
**Post date:** [July 11, 2006, 8:34pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/developmetn-releases-on-rubyforge/97980/3 "2006-07-11T20:34:28Z")

</div>

removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid wrote:

> I think Daniel’s suggestion – to not release a gem to RubyForge if it is  
> a development release – is a good one. Other than that, I think it comes  
> down to versioning and release naming as the only current options.

On second though, testing the gem is important too and I imagine some  
of my users still want the convenicen of the gem even for development  
versions…

One thing I thought of was prefixing dev versions with 0. so version  
1.5.0’s dev version would be 0.1.5.0.

Btw in gems versioing does it support dashes and do they sort before  
dots? Eg.

1.5.0, 1.5.0-2, 1.5.0-1, 1.4.9

Thanks,  
T.