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
And for vaporware - we can use imaginary numbers... Warren Seltzer -----Original Message----- From: rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org [mailto:rails-bounces-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of Kyle Maxwell Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2005 1:45 AM To: rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org Subject: [Rails] No 1.0 for Rails 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 _______________________________________________ Rails mailing list Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
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 " > > KyleNegative numbers eh? OK, here''s what I think of your idea: -1 non-stupid non-trendy idea. Joe -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
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. > > Joeheehee!!! -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
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 "Warren Seltzer" <warrens-uf+uqdaZT6qTt3WsUyM9gg@public.gmane.org> wrote:> And for vaporware - we can use imaginary numbers... > > Warren Seltzer
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 ===============================================================================
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> 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 >_______________________________________________ >Rails mailing list >Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org >http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails > > >-- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky http://linuxcapacityplanning.com
I weep for humanity. On Mon, 2005-12-12 at 15:45 -0800, 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 > _______________________________________________ > Rails mailing list > Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org > http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
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
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