From: Brian Candler Date: 2009-02-12T18:03:02+09:00 Subject: Re: If you are unhappy with the direction of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond Gregory Brown wrote: > I am setting up two threads ... > This one is for those who wish that Ruby 1.8 would go *back* to being > 1.8.6 compatible in Ruby 1.8.8. If you agree with this, share your > thoughts or at least a simple '+1'. I think it's too late to go back now, but +1 to wishing 1.8.7 had never existed. It causes all sorts of confusion even on this mailing list as to what features do or do not exist in ruby 1.8, and gives admins an unnecessary dilemma: upgrade all production boxes to new and relatively untested code which may break existing applications? Or suffer the complaints from new applications which start to rely on the new features? This was all handled much better in the 1.6 -> 1.8 transition. * 1.6 was stable * 1.7 was developmental, and added a bunch of features * finally it was released as 1.8 * there was no meddling with 1.6 * A separate "shim" library was released which included a number of useful new features from 1.8 (e.g. StringIO), which allowed some code written using 1.8 features to run under 1.6, thus extending the lifetime of 1.6 Under this model: 1.9 would have been experimental, it would have been released eventually as 1.10 (or as 2.0, I don't care). 1.8 would have been a stable production branch, and for those people who wanted 1.10/2.0 features, there would be an optional compatibility library. As for numbering, it's not so important, but the current scheme is silly and appears to be based on an irrational fear of exceeding 1.9. AFAICT, this is either because the string "1.10" doesn't sort after "1.9", or because 2.0 would somehow imply the language is especially "blessed" or "finalised". On that basis, 2.0 will never be released. IMO, YARV was a big enough change to warrant a new major number. If you want to see numbering done properly, look at FreeBSD's release process. Anyway, I look forward to running ruby version 1.9.9.9 in future years :-) -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.