From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2011-01-21T04:02:31+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:34677] Re: [Ruby 1.8-Feature#4239] Let's begin a talk for "1.8.8" -- How's needed for surviving 1.8?

Hi,

In message "Re: [ruby-core:34669] [Ruby 1.8-Feature#4239] Let's begin a talk for "1.8.8" -- How's needed for surviving 1.8?"
    on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 02:30:57 +0900, Zeno Davatz <redmine@ruby-lang.org> writes:

|I would not cherry-pick the features out of the patches (Oniguruma), I would apply them asap and then work up a release cycle where people know when they can commit new stuff (at rc1) and when they have to hold there horses (rc8) because a new stable release is about to be out. This cycle is of great importance. After all it is a great honor for Ruby if people write patches like the one of Oniguruma. That is one great patch upon which the improvements should be done. This is what I call chronologically logical. Evolution. Survival of the sickest.

I am not sure how much you know about the development cycle of Ruby,
but 1.8 is not in the right cycle for fast merging.  It's in the
stable stage.  Why do you want to apply the patch (that introduces
incompatibility) to the stable release?  That would cause more trouble
than benefit.

In contrast, trunk is moving, so if you propose something useful to
the trunk, it will be merged much easier.

|I will try to document all the breakages we encounter as Jonas recommended here: 
|http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/wiki/ruby-19/MigrationIssuesFrom18

Thank you for your work.

							matz.