[ruby-talk:00142] Re: ruby 1.3 released

In message "[ruby-talk:00141] Re: ruby 1.3 released"
    on 98/12/24, Clemens Hintze <[e-mail]> writes:

>Why, if I may ask? Is that scheme only changed for that releases, or in
>future also? What would indicate a beta version (odd digits?)?
>
>>   1.2 = stable version (will be released tommorrow)
>>   1.3 = experimental version
>> 
>
>Sorry, but I don't understand that scheme. First there was a 1.1d0.
>After that 1.1d1 (inofficial) was released. And at last but not least
>there is an 1.3 which follows directly 1.1d1. So that would give that
>figure: 1.1c9 --> 1.1d0 --> 1.1d1 --> 1.3. 
>
>How does the 1.2 fit into that scheme????????
>
>> I fixed severabl bugs in 1.3 from 1.1d0.  
>> Enjoy! well, at you own risk. ;-)

Well, According to their discussion...

First, we Japanese guys know that Matz is writing the first book 
about ruby in Japanese, which focus on ruby 1.2 (He and collaborator 
has decided the target at early time, I heard).  So, 1.2 is 
considered coming soon by us. 

On the other hand,  some poeple were considering that 1.1c were
something like `gamma version' and 1.1d were experimental series 
toward 1.2. They were on tiptoe with expectation the final verion 
of 1.1 before 1.2, however, Matz think that 1.1c9 is an instant 
final one!!  Then, they confused ``which version is stable!?''

He seems to dislike `1.1 go ahead of 1.1a in lexically orther' 
but some persons favor version number which doesn't has any 
letter `a',`b'...

To balance accounts, Mr. Maebashi give an proposal as follows 
today:

  * 1.1c9 -> 1.2 (stable) # maybe soon
  * 1.1d0 -> 1.3 (experimental)
  * 1.3xx -> 1.4 when 1.3xx is stable 

And it was accepted. 

Matz seems also to be adopting a scheme that is `stable even' and 
`experimental odd'.  However, I think that he may update stable 
one bacause of his philosophy :-)

The above is what I understand.  It maybe wrong something a few
but the gist is right. 

-- gotoken