Is 1.8.6 p287 the "finally fixed" version?

Over the last couple of months there seemed to be long-running threads
of discussion/argument regarding 1.8.6 p230 and it's fixes, or lack
thereof, and compatibility with Rails.

I now see there's a 1.8.6 p287 listed under "Other News" on the
officialy Ruby site (though not in the Downloads section,
unfortunately).

Does this finally put an end to all the back-and-forth about p230?

Was there a big announcement somewhere about this that I missed (very
possible?)

Thanks,
Jeff

Not official word by any means, but while I was having all sorts of
issues with p230, p287 works-for-me

-greg

···

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Jeff <cohen.jeff@gmail.com> wrote:

Over the last couple of months there seemed to be long-running threads
of discussion/argument regarding 1.8.6 p230 and it's fixes, or lack
thereof, and compatibility with Rails.

I now see there's a 1.8.6 p287 listed under "Other News" on the
officialy Ruby site (though not in the Downloads section,
unfortunately).

Does this finally put an end to all the back-and-forth about p230?

--
Technical Blaag at: http://blog.majesticseacreature.com | Non-tech
stuff at: http://metametta.blogspot.com

I would say the consensus is 'yes', p287 is stable. Most of the
bigger Rails hosting providers have moved to 287 for their
deployments, which usually a good sign that it's proved itself out in
many real world deployments.

- Rob

http://thinkrelevance.com

···

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Jeff <cohen.jeff@gmail.com> wrote:

Over the last couple of months there seemed to be long-running threads
of discussion/argument regarding 1.8.6 p230 and it's fixes, or lack
thereof, and compatibility with Rails.

I now see there's a 1.8.6 p287 listed under "Other News" on the
officialy Ruby site (though not in the Downloads section,
unfortunately).

Does this finally put an end to all the back-and-forth about p230?

Was there a big announcement somewhere about this that I missed (very
possible?)

Thanks,
Jeff

A plea to the RubyCentral guys: can you ask Matz to address this issue
at RubyConf?

Jeff

···

On Sep 16, 11:17 am, "Gregory Brown" <gregory.t.br...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not official word by any means, but while I was having all sorts of
issues with p230, p287 works-for-me

-greg

--
Technical Blaag at:http://blog.majesticseacreature.com| Non-tech
stuff at:http://metametta.blogspot.com

If you will be there, you can ask him during Q&A, or you could repost
this question on ruby-core where you're more likely to get official
word.

-greg

···

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Jeff <cohen.jeff@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 16, 11:17 am, "Gregory Brown" <gregory.t.br...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Not official word by any means, but while I was having all sorts of
issues with p230, p287 works-for-me

-greg

--
Technical Blaag at:http://blog.majesticseacreature.com| Non-tech
stuff at:http://metametta.blogspot.com

A plea to the RubyCentral guys: can you ask Matz to address this issue
at RubyConf?

--
Technical Blaag at: http://blog.majesticseacreature.com | Non-tech
stuff at: http://metametta.blogspot.com

Hi,

···

In message "Re: Is 1.8.6 p287 the "finally fixed" version?" on Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:34:02 +0900, Jeff <cohen.jeff@gmail.com> writes:

A plea to the RubyCentral guys: can you ask Matz to address this issue
at RubyConf?

I am not the right person to ask about 1.8 stability. We have 1.8
maintainers.

              matz.

I will be there - duh! Good idea. Thanks.

Jeff

···

On Sep 16, 1:04 pm, "Gregory Brown" <gregory.t.br...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Jeff <cohen.j...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 11:17 am, "Gregory Brown" <gregory.t.br...@gmail.com> > > wrote:
>> Not official word by any means, but while I was having all sorts of
>> issues with p230, p287 works-for-me

>> -greg

>> --
>> Technical Blaag at:http://blog.majesticseacreature.com|Non-tech
>> stuff at:http://metametta.blogspot.com

> A plea to the RubyCentral guys: can you ask Matz to address this issue
> at RubyConf?

If you will be there, you can ask him during Q&A, or you could repost
this question on ruby-core where you're more likely to get official
word.

Hi Matz,

Thanks for the reply. I'm not asking so much about 1.8 stability, as I
am about the confusion/lack of communication that some of us witnessed
during that time period. There was some frustration in the community
over that episode, and to my knowledge it wasn't really ever addressed
(or maybe I missed final announcement).

If the responsiblity for clear communication regarding all 1.8-related
activities lies with the maintainers, then you are right that I should
take it up with them. I just wanted to point out this is not a
technical issue, as much as a community/leadership issue, and that's
why I thought it might be appropriate for you to address this past
episode in some fashion.

Thanks!
Jeff

···

On Sep 16, 5:52 pm, Yukihiro Matsumoto <m...@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

Hi,

In message "Re: Is 1.8.6 p287 the "finally fixed" version?" > on Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:34:02 +0900, Jeff <cohen.j...@gmail.com> writes:

>A plea to the RubyCentral guys: can you ask Matz to address this issue
>at RubyConf?

I am not the right person to ask about 1.8 stability. We have 1.8
maintainers.

                                                    matz\.