Is this really a good idea ?
Is every snapshot of 1.7.2 equally stable ?
Since 1.7.2 seem to be a moving target, isn’t there an obvious risk
that each new snapshot can introduce new bugs (besides any new features).
I realize that this maybe isn’t something that you can solve,
but rather an issue with the way Ruby is developed.
People are “forced” to use 1.7.2 (because of various problems with
the 1.6.x line). Often the answer on this list when people ask about
a particular problem is: use 1.7.2 (or even the latest from CVS).
This causes problems if Ruby is to be used in a production
environment. I’m considering using Ruby more in such a setting, but
before I dare to do that I would like to see the following come
- a "good" Windows version of Ruby.
I hope Andy's installer will become that version.
- it should be based on a "well-defined" version of Ruby.
If the 1.7 line is becoming the de-facto version people
are using, I think the handling of releases should be be more
"formal", so Andy can base his installer on a "real" release.
- if 1.7.2 remains as "floating" as it is today, the next best
thing would be if Andy told *exactly* what 1.7.2 snapshot he
uses for building his Windows Installer.
I need to use Ruby on several platforms (Windows, Solaris, Linux,…)
and I want to be able to use the same version on all platforms.
But I also want to use Andy’s Windows Installer, and today this is
an impossible equation …
I hope someone with knowledge of the way releases of Ruby
are made, can shed some light on the issues mentioned above.
On Wed, 14 Aug 2002, Andrew Hunt wrote:
[ Cris Morris wrote: ]
Okay - so assuming things need to be tightened up on the
1.7.2-1 installer, and -2 comes out, it’ll just have the latest
cvs snapshot at that time.
Exactly. People are testing out 1.7.2-1 as we speak, so as soon as I get
a pile of bugs to fix (assuming they are things I can fix, i.e., bugs
in the installer not in the components), I’ll release a -2 with the
latest snapshot at that time.