From: Daniel Berger <djberg96@...>
Date: 2006-11-20T22:27:28+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond.

Hugh Sasse wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:
>
>   
>> On Nov 19, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Kornelius Kalnbach wrote:
>>
>>     
>>>> What if we need to exceed 1.8.9?
>>>>         
>>> I guess the XP people would say: Let's see if we really run into that
>>> problem :) (and write more tests in the meanwhile.)
>>>
>>> But the question is surely interesting. I vote for 1.8.10.
>>> [murphy]
>>>       
>> Not backwards compatible.
>>
>> $ ruby -e 'p %w[1.8.1 1.8.2 1.8.9 1.8.10].sort'
>> ["1.8.1", "1.8.10", "1.8.2", "1.8.9"]
>>     
>
> That's why I was proposing that the feature be backported to 1.6 etc.
>         Hugh
>   
>
>
>   
So, let me get this straight people.  We're avoiding 1.8.10 because of 
the way it *sorts*?  Not backwards compatible....with what?

- Dan

PS - No version strings either.  Just ask the Perl community how well 
those have gone over.