[#38647] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5130][Open] Thread.pass sticks on OpenBSD — Yui NARUSE <naruse@...>

16 messages 2011/08/01

[#38653] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5135][Open] Ruby 1.9.3-preview1 tests fails in Fedora Rawhide — Vit Ondruch <v.ondruch@...>

31 messages 2011/08/01

[#38666] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5138][Open] Add nonblocking IO that does not use exceptions for EOF and EWOULDBLOCK — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...>

61 messages 2011/08/01
[#38667] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5138][Open] Add nonblocking IO that does not use exceptions for EOF and EWOULDBLOCK — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...> 2011/08/01

On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 07:35:15AM +0900, Yehuda Katz wrote:

[#38669] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5138][Open] Add nonblocking IO that does not use exceptions for EOF and EWOULDBLOCK — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2011/08/01

(08/02/2011 07:46 AM), Aaron Patterson wrote:

[#38671] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5138][Open] Add nonblocking IO that does not use exceptions for EOF and EWOULDBLOCK — Eric Wong <normalperson@...> 2011/08/01

Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#38695] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5144][Open] Remove GPL file from repository — Vit Ondruch <v.ondruch@...>

17 messages 2011/08/02

[#38706] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5147][Open] mkmf should not require static library when ruby is built with --enable-shared — Vit Ondruch <v.ondruch@...>

9 messages 2011/08/02

[#38894] Why Ruby has versioned paths? — V咜 Ondruch <v.ondruch@...>

Hello, could somebody please elaborate about reasons why Ruby uses versioned

9 messages 2011/08/10

[#38972] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5193][Open] ruby_thread_data_type linker errors fixed with RUBY_EXTERN — Charlie Savage <cfis@...>

28 messages 2011/08/16

[#38980] :symbol.is_a?(String) — Magnus Holm <judofyr@...>

http://viewsourcecode.org/why/redhanded/inspect/SymbolIs_aString.html

8 messages 2011/08/16

[#39025] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5206][Open] ruby -K should warn — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>

14 messages 2011/08/19

[#39062] Releasing r33028 as Ruby 1.9.3 RC1 — Yugui <yugui@...>

Hi,

17 messages 2011/08/23

[#39093] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5227][Open] Float#round fails on corner cases — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@...>

14 messages 2011/08/24
[#39115] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5227][Assigned] Float#round fails on corner cases — Yui NARUSE <naruse@...> 2011/08/26

[#39126] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5227][Assigned] Float#round fails on corner cases — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core-mailing-list@...> 2011/08/26

Hi

[#39120] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5233][Open] OpenSSL::SSL::SSLSocket has problems with encodings other than "ascii" — Niklas Baumstark <niklas.baumstark@...>

9 messages 2011/08/26

[#39142] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5239][Open] bootstraptest/runner.rb: assert_normal_exit logic broken on Debian/GNU kFreeBSD — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...>

11 messages 2011/08/27

[#39162] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5244][Open] Continuation causes Bus Error on Debian sparc — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...>

29 messages 2011/08/28

[ruby-core:39085] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5056] About 1.9 EOL

From: Yugui <yugui@...>
Date: 2011-08-24 14:27:10 UTC
List: ruby-core #39085
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Motohiro KOSAKI
<kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>  1.9.4 will be released in early 2012. It has only small update.
> because development time is smaller than 1.9.[123].
>  2.0 will be released in 2013 Feb. it's good candidate because ruby was born at Feb 24 1993.
>  2.0 don't have any incompatibility
>  no ruby_1_9 branch
>  keep "release once per a year" rule
>  3.0 may have API change, but it's 2015 or later

Basically I agree with Motohiro, except:
>  no ruby_1_9 branch

Ruby 1.9 will be good enough with Ruby 1.9.3.  Ruby 1.9.2 resolved
some contradictive/confusing language designs in Ruby 1.9.1.  Ruby
1.9.3 improved the implementation.  So next, what should we do to make
Ruby better?
* Deprecation of unwanted APIs/features
* Large enhancements, like keyword arguments, refinements or classbox.

Ruby with these changes should be called Ruby 2.0.  Matz is right.
But also these features will take some time.  It cannot be released
within 2012.  So 2013 Feb is a good candidate.


On Fri, Jul 22, 2011 at 12:54 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> I disagree. ithout making a branch, we have to wait 2.0 works until
> we release 1.9.4 in the year 2012.

Yes. We should have a branch.

>  no ruby_1_9 branch
But it can be ruby_1_9_4.  Motohiro is also right. :)

-- 
Yuki Sonoda (Yugui)
yugui@yugui.jp
http://yugui.jp

In This Thread