From: Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@...>
Date: 2006-08-22T03:19:31+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby 1.9, Ruby 2.0, Yarv and so on

On 8/21/06, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 2006, at 12:36 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:
>
> > Doesn't Ruby version numbering follow the same general scheme as the
> > Linux kernel?
> >
> > Version Major.Minor[.sub-version]
> >
> > Versions with even minor numbers are considered the stable
> > "production" branch.
> > Versions with odd minor numbers are considered experimental where
> > features which might produce incompatibilities and breakage are added,
> > tried out, and perhaps removed before becoming part of the
> > specification if not the implementation of the next stable branch.
> >
> > Or do I have it wrong?
>
> In general yes, although it seems Matz is considering a production
> 1.9 release.

I thought that he was joking when he said that the version after 1.9.9
would be 1.9.a.

Now I wouldn't be surprised if 2.0 weren't just a tagged version of a
1.9.x release (which is what I meant above by "if not the
implementation of," but I would be surprised if there was a production
1.9.x release so-named.


-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

IPMS/USA Region 12 Coordinator
http://ipmsr12.denhaven2.com/

Visit the Project Mercury Wiki Site
http://www.mercuryspacecraft.com/