From: Rick DeNatale Date: 2009-02-13T03:35:32+09:00 Subject: Re: If you are unhappy with the direction of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond --0016364c5db9e12f160462bcfca2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Ola Bini wrote: > Rick DeNatale wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Ezra Zygmuntowicz > >wrote: >> >> >> >>> Engine Yard is willing to step up as the official maintainer of >>> ruby1.8.6. We can provide the right amount of human resources as well as >>> server and QA resources with automated CI running the rubyspecs. >>> >>> I feel that it is very important to keep a stable ruby 1.8.6 >>> lineage >>> for some time to come. >>> >>> Matz has stated that he is willing to pass the torch on maintenance >>> of ruby1.8.6 and we would like to step up to the plate for the whole ruby >>> community. Please respond here if you think Engine yard would make good >>> maintainers of the ruby1.8.6 lineage >>> >>> >>> >>> >> +1 >> >> Although, I'm at a loss as to what you'd use for the version number on the >> first maintenance release. >> >> >> >> > What about 1.8.6.1? > As long as the downstream packagers pick up on it, but without additional help, I think that most systems would treat 1.8.7 as compatible with, and 'better' than 1.8.6.x. Examples. Debian only uses the major and minor to differentiate different packages. The Ubuntu list of Ruby packages illustrates this: http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=ruby There are separate Ruby1.8 and Ruby1.9 packages. Note that the newer Debian systems map Ruby1.8 to Ruby 1.8.7 they also seem to use patchlevel and other information to generate their own fourth level version numbers Macports only seems to have s single Ruby which is currently at 1.8.7 >port list ruby ruby @1.8.7-p72 lang/ruby Considering how much trouble there's been reconciling the issues around rubygems and debian, I'm not very confident that package maintainers will treat 1.8.6.x and 1.8.7 as different upstream versions. But I 'll reiterate that I think that the idea of maintaining 1.8.6 with fixed semantics is a good idea. -- Rick DeNatale Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/ Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale --0016364c5db9e12f160462bcfca2--