> Since everybody in the Ruby community seems to think that it's okay for major breaking changes to occur on a minor version bump I would say this is true for

> Since everybody in the Ruby community seems to think that it's okay for major breaking changes to occur on a minor version bump I would say this is true for Rails, but I think (or hope!) there is a consensus (or at least a majority opinion?) among Ruby developers that any gem version that breaks compatibility should change the major (1st) version number. Otherwise, the ~> operator used by bundler and RubyGems becomes meaningless. All of the gems that I publish strictly follow the rule that any change that could break code will bump the 1st version number, any change that adds features/behavior will bump the 2nd version number, and any change that has no interface effect (bug fixes, performance enhancements, documentation tweaks) will bump the 3rd version number.