Recently dev-ruby/rubygems-1.1.0-r0 (explicit -r0 in ebuild name) was 
commited to mainline gentoo-x86; as far as I know, this is in conflict 
w/ long term practice of not explicitly specifying -r0 in the ebuild 
name due to the implicit -r0 addition in comparison/atom matching.
At this point, said ebuild is the only one in the tree with an 
explicit -r0 also, so I'm advocating having the -r0 dropped.

The reason I'm emailing -dev is to ensure there is consensus on 
leaving off an explicit -r0 in the ebuild name- long term, it seems 
folks always followed the rule but it needs to be codified due to 
problems with uniquely identifying the ebuild in the repo.

Expanding on that one a bit, either -r0 should be required, or it must 
be left off- reason is simple, if you had both 1.1.0 and 1.1.0-r0 in a 
repo, and due to dev-ruby/rubygems-1.1.0-r0 == dev-ruby/rubygems-1.1.0
via the implicit -r0 rule, there is no defined sorting order there.  

Literally, if both are there which version on disk the manager 
used would be indeterminant at worst, pkg manager specific at best.

I've opened a pms bug (21543) to get this corrected in docs, but 
again, emailing to ensure there is consensus- so kindly chime in as 
to which it should be.  Personally I'm for preserving the unofficial 
long term rule of dropping -r0 from the ebuild name itself, but 
y'alls show, so speak up.

~harring