From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <zznmeb@...>
Date: 2009-02-11T12:00:24+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:21979] Re: New hash : syntax for the 1.8 series?

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Evan Phoenix <evan@fallingsnow.net> wrote:

> I would hope that some consideration is given to how people expect version
> numbers to work. As you stated before, you've been thinking about ruby's
> versions like epoch.major.minor, but I'd expect that no one else has been.
>
> This causes massive confusion and doubt about ruby. When a user upgrades to
> 1.8.7 and a significant amount of code begins to fail, they worry. When the
> upgrade to 1.8.8 and discover they've been using new syntax that their
> coworkers don't have, they get worried.
>
> They get worried because when they see a change in the 3rd number, they
> don't expect "this release breaks backward compatibility in major ways."
>
> We can do little to change their expectations of this fact sadly, because
> this is the way almost all open source software uses version numbers.
>
> In my opinion, we're doing everyone a dis-service by calling YARV and the
> trunk 1.9. It's such a huge rewrite, it clearly should be at the very least
> 2.0. If we did that, people would
>  1) Be quite happy there was a new ruby major release, as there as never
> been one.
>  2) Be very aware that it changes a lot, and it's not a simple thing to
> upgrade
>
> The problems with the current situation are compounded by the fact that
> trunk is currently called 1.9.1, which indicates it's a minor change from
> 1.9, which is completely false.
>
> As 1.9 stabilized, it should have been upgraded to 2.0 and begun life as a
> normal, new major release.
>
> We can not continue to consider using the first number if the version a
> forbidden thing. It is holding back ruby in the eyes of the programming
> community, and it's making us all fight amongst ourselves.

[snip]

> This is absolutely true, but by creating more confusing in the 1.8 release
> process, everyone suffers. The company that is considering using ruby for
> the first time can easily say "They're not stable across releases."
>
> The question should be asked, what is the point of 1.8.8? Is it to aid in
> migrating people to 1.9? If so, do not release it as 1.8, as it is not a
> maintance release for 1.8! As David Black mentioned, call it something like
> 1.8x9 or something.
>
> Something that says "this is a release for people transitioning to 1.9"
>
> If thats not said, people won't know why 1.8.8 is put out. They'll assume
> it's because there are bug fixes, when thats not at all why it was put out.
>
> I pled with you to reconsider making drastic changes to 1.8. It will only
> create confusion, uncertainty, and doubt about ruby and the ruby community.

I am much less concerned about the numbers than I am about the
proliferation of versions with little usage in the community. I don't
really care if the current YARV is called 1.9.1 or 2.0, but I *do*
care that there seem to be mostly unused 1.8.7 and 1.8.8, "unstable"
1.9.0, heavily-used 1.8.6 and one "stable" YARV, 1.9.1. As I noted
above, I'm moving my development efforts to 1.9.1 because

a. The documentation is there now, and
b. I want the YARV engine!
-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

I've never met a happy clam. In fact, most of them were pretty steamed.