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.
4bd34a2216dc8bdbf1f017f64e4d59e8?d=identicon&s=25 Kyle Maxwell (Guest)
on 2005-12-13 00:47
(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
E6dd9cedee99f9d02e5f87d80ee0e681?d=identicon&s=25 Warren Seltzer (Guest)
on 2005-12-13 01:11
(Received via mailing list)
And for vaporware - we can use imaginary numbers...

Warren Seltzer
429500a5a54600958c9c7ac032a37f66?d=identicon&s=25 Joe (Guest)
on 2005-12-13 01:24
Kyle Maxwell 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
B1278660c7cd48a1dd7cff4ce77230e8?d=identicon&s=25 joebob briggs (Guest)
on 2005-12-13 01:46
Joe wrote:
> Kyle Maxwell 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!!!
8c43ed7f065406bf171c0f3eb32cf615?d=identicon&s=25 Zed A. Shaw (Guest)
on 2005-12-13 02:29
(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
Cb48ca5059faf7409a5ab3745a964696?d=identicon&s=25 unknown (Guest)
on 2005-12-13 03:05
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005, Kyle Maxwell 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
===============================================================================
3bb23e7770680ea44a2d79e6d10daaed?d=identicon&s=25 M. Edward (Ed) Borasky (Guest)
on 2005-12-13 04:26
(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>
A78fabe22aa7df17f05cb02e622e20a7?d=identicon&s=25 Jerrett Taylor (Guest)
on 2005-12-13 21:28
(Received via mailing list)
I weep for humanity.
A2b2f4ee23989dc68529baef9cbddcd6?d=identicon&s=25 Julian 'Julik' Tarkhanov (Guest)
on 2005-12-14 00:48
(Received via mailing list)
On 13-dec-2005, at 0:45, Kyle Maxwell 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
Eea7ad39737b0dbf3de38874e0a6c7d8?d=identicon&s=25 Justin Forder (Guest)
on 2005-12-14 04:02
(Received via mailing list)
Kyle Maxwell 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.