Does anyone have any idea when 1.9 will be ready for production
release?
It is expected to release a few days before Christmas.
James Edward Gray II
···
On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Rong wrote:
Does anyone have any idea when 1.9 will be ready for production
release?
Has anyone said which Christmas?
Besides which, I imagine that 1.9 will be "ready for production" when it's
called 2.0 instead.
···
On Sunday 14 September 2008 22:00:24 James Gray wrote:
On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Rong wrote:
> Does anyone have any idea when 1.9 will be ready for production
> release?It is expected to release a few days before Christmas.
Did anyone say which Christmas?
I imagine it won't be, at least, not when it's still called 1.9 -- isn't
the "production" release going to be 2.0?
For what it's worth, it seems reasonably stable to me. Most of the problems
I've had with it have been some library which was broken by
backwards-incompatible changes -- not an actual 1.9 bug.
(At least, not an implementation bug. There's still a fairly serious design
bug in the form of autoload.)
(Apologies if this is a duplicate message. My mailer decided to implode just
as it was sending.)
···
On Sunday 14 September 2008 22:00:24 James Gray wrote:
On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Rong wrote:
> Does anyone have any idea when 1.9 will be ready for production
> release?It is expected to release a few days before Christmas.
No, Matz announced about a year ago that instead of even minor version
numbers indicating production vs. experimental/development, a teeny version
number > 0 would be the new indication, So 1.9.1 will be production.
Seems he is afraid of running out of digits.
···
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:58 PM, David Masover <ninja@slaphack.com> wrote:
On Sunday 14 September 2008 22:00:24 James Gray wrote:
> On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Rong wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any idea when 1.9 will be ready for production
> > release?
>
> It is expected to release a few days before Christmas.Did anyone say which Christmas?
I imagine it won't be, at least, not when it's still called 1.9 -- isn't
the "production" release going to be 2.0?
--
Rick DeNatale
My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Does anyone have any idea when 1.9 will be ready for production
release?It is expected to release a few days before Christmas.
Has anyone said which Christmas?
Yes. Matz. At the Lone Star Rubyconf.
This Christmas.
Besides which, I imagine that 1.9 will be "ready for production" when it's called 2.0 instead.
The production release will be 1.9.1.
James Edward Gray II
···
On Sep 15, 2008, at 10:51 PM, David Masover wrote:
On Sunday 14 September 2008 22:00:24 James Gray wrote:
On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Rong wrote:
Mostly unrelated, but it actually may be so. Matz hates the idea of
something like 1.8.10, though I don't exactly remember the story about
it. I think it has to do with comparison of version numbers as
strings, or something else. Maybe someone here knows the back story.
-greg
···
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Rick DeNatale <rick.denatale@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:58 PM, David Masover <ninja@slaphack.com> wrote:
No, Matz announced about a year ago that instead of even minor version
numbers indicating production vs. experimental/development, a teeny version
number > 0 would be the new indication, So 1.9.1 will be production.Seems he is afraid of running out of digits.
--
Technical Blaag at: http://blog.majesticseacreature.com | Non-tech
stuff at: http://metametta.blogspot.com
Matz hates the idea of something like 1.8.10, though I don't exactly remember the story about it. I think it has to do with comparison of version numbers as strings, or something else.
That's right:
>> "1.8.9" < "1.8.10"
=> false
James Edward Gray II
···
On Sep 16, 2008, at 8:21 AM, Gregory Brown wrote:
Well, thank goodness I'm not the only person who has noticed this.
I'm not entirely convinced this is the best solution, but . . . whatever.
I'm more interested in the software than the version numbering system,
anyway.
···
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:30:10PM +0900, James Gray wrote:
On Sep 16, 2008, at 8:21 AM, Gregory Brown wrote:
>Matz hates the idea of something like 1.8.10, though I don't exactly
>remember the story about it. I think it has to do with comparison
>of version numbers as strings, or something else.That's right:
>> "1.8.9" < "1.8.10"
=> false
--
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
Power corrupts. The command line corrupts absolutely.