First of all I want to thank Matz and Ko1 for yours great work! I
can't say how much thankful I am for Ruby language.
My question is generally to Matz, Ko1 or other Ruby core maintainers.
We have Ruby 1.9 already released. Matz says that it's not stable as
he expected, so it requires some work to become stable. But what
intentions are for Ruby 1.9.x? Is it released mainly for developers
and programmers which are very close to language (language, gem
maintainers) or it's regular release for production usage? Does Ruby
follow unix style for labeling versions? (1.8 stable, 1.9 development,
2.0 stable etc) I've read dissenting opinions of it.
You are asking very usefull questions! Well... we need wait to someone
answer
Regards,
Luiz Vitor.
···
On Dec 26, 2007 6:50 PM, Radosław Bułat <radek.bulat@gmail.com> wrote:
First of all I want to thank Matz and Ko1 for yours great work! I
can't say how much thankful I am for Ruby language.
My question is generally to Matz, Ko1 or other Ruby core maintainers.
We have Ruby 1.9 already released. Matz says that it's not stable as
he expected, so it requires some work to become stable. But what
intentions are for Ruby 1.9.x? Is it released mainly for developers
and programmers which are very close to language (language, gem
maintainers) or it's regular release for production usage? Does Ruby
follow unix style for labeling versions? (1.8 stable, 1.9 development,
2.0 stable etc) I've read dissenting opinions of it.
My question is generally to Matz, Ko1 or other Ruby core maintainers.
We have Ruby 1.9 already released. Matz says that it's not stable as
he expected, so it requires some work to become stable. But what
intentions are for Ruby 1.9.x?
Here's a quick translation of the relevant parts of a mail from matz
to ruby-dev that are kind of relevant to this question.
=begin translation
For now, we'll focus on improving 1.9. Bugs are certain to be found,
and there is still lots to do. So, I don't think there is any need to
create a 1.9 branch for now. Even if we do branch, we'll have to apply
fixes to both (trunk and branch), which is a doubling of required
effort, so just tagging should be sufficient.
Here's a possible plan for the next step:
* Release 1.9.1 sometime during the first half of 2008 (decide later
- perhaps April?)
* In order to drive development, make intermediate releases regularly
with short (one month?) intervals with the version fixed at 1.9.0
(releases every 29th?)
* Prepare documentation for migrating from 1.8 to 1.9 in parallel
What do you think?
= end
# Disclaimer: this is just a translation of part of a single mail from
matz in a thread of discussion. It is not an announcement.
···
On Dec 27, 2007 5:50 AM, Radosław Bułat <radek.bulat@gmail.com> wrote:
Does Ruby
follow unix style for labeling versions? (1.8 stable, 1.9 development,
2.0 stable etc) I've read dissenting opinions of it.
IIRC this was true for 1.7. I think the "stable" version after 1.6 was
1.8.
I'm somehow surprised, because it was named since a long time what is
behind Ruby 1.9.
1) Starting with planned Ruby 1.9.1 Ruby will not follow the even-odd
number scheme, that was followed before. Ruby 1.9.n (n>=1) will be a
stable version, planned for production usage.
2) Ruby 1.9.n (n>=1) contains the ideas from Ruby 2, that are actual
feasible.
3) Work on Ruby 2 didn't start now.
4) Ruby 1.9.0 was released instead of the planned Ruby 1.9.1, because
the trunk was not as stable on 25.12. as everybody wants. It is not
intended as a production version.
5) Ruby 1.9.0 is stable in respect to features, and is from this
viewpoint a reference inplementation, which can be used by developers.
This is what how I understand all the posts an conference videos on the
last year. I hope it is complete an correct (Mats?)
in the Desktop reference by Matz, printed in 2002,
he says ..
"Developmental releases of Ruby always have an odd minor revision number such as 1.5 or 1.7.
Once a developmental release is stable and finalized, it's then "promoted" to a stable release. Stable releases always have an even minor revision number such as 2.0 or3.2. Therefore, releases with even subversion numbers are stable releases. Releases with odd subversion numbers are developmental versions..."
I assume this is still the case.
Do not ever use a developmental release for production.
As far as intentions for 1.9.x, I will leave that answer to some one else.
···
On Dec 26, 2007, at 4:17 PM, Luiz Vitor Martinez Cardoso wrote:
You are asking very usefull questions! Well... we need wait to someone
answer
Regards,
Luiz Vitor.
On Dec 26, 2007 6:50 PM, Radosław Bułat <radek.bulat@gmail.com> > wrote:
First of all I want to thank Matz and Ko1 for yours great work! I
can't say how much thankful I am for Ruby language.
My question is generally to Matz, Ko1 or other Ruby core maintainers.
We have Ruby 1.9 already released. Matz says that it's not stable as
he expected, so it requires some work to become stable. But what
intentions are for Ruby 1.9.x? Is it released mainly for developers
and programmers which are very close to language (language, gem
maintainers) or it's regular release for production usage? Does Ruby
follow unix style for labeling versions? (1.8 stable, 1.9 development,
2.0 stable etc) I've read dissenting opinions of it.
So I guess this means that version 1.9.0 will change at the end of
each month??? until 1.9.1 is released maybe in April.
If this is the case, I'm not sure just what changed when 1.9.0 was
released on the 25th.
I'm a bit confused.
···
On Dec 27, 2007 11:43 PM, Leonard Chin <l.g.chin@gmail.com> wrote:
=begin translation
For now, we'll focus on improving 1.9. Bugs are certain to be found,
and there is still lots to do. So, I don't think there is any need to
create a 1.9 branch for now. Even if we do branch, we'll have to apply
fixes to both (trunk and branch), which is a doubling of required
effort, so just tagging should be sufficient.
Here's a possible plan for the next step:
* Release 1.9.1 sometime during the first half of 2008 (decide later
- perhaps April?)
* In order to drive development, make intermediate releases regularly
with short (one month?) intervals with the version fixed at 1.9.0
(releases every 29th?)
* In order to drive development, make intermediate releases regularly
with short (one month?) intervals with the version fixed at 1.9.0
(releases every 29th?)
This may produce more confusion than help. There are a lot of things to
test and evaluate in Ruby 1.9.0, which takes time.
We now have a baseline for testing, which can be referenced in problem
reports. If there is a report area (http://rubyforge.org/projects/ruby/
???) everybody can see if a problem is already reported, and we can
follow the state of the report.
To plan a much more stable release Ruby 1.9.1 for April or so makes
sense, but to have monthly new Ruby 1.9.0 - what is principal the
difference to nightly snapshots?
Matz announced a change to this versioning policy a few months ago on
the ruby core forum.
1.9 which has been in a state of definitional flux for over a year,
with experimental features being added to the language, then changed
or dropped, was to have become functionally stable yesterday. As I
understand it the intent was that yesterday's release was to have been
1.9.1 instead of 1.9.0, which would have signalled this stability. I
think that the language definition for Ruby 1.9 is now pretty well
fixed, although Matz has reserved the right to make changes in the
case that a major mistake is found.
At the same time he made the remarks about the versioning changes,
Matz indicated that 1.9.1 would still not be production ready and that
the implementation would still be evolving over the next several
months. The intention, as I read it, was to put a stake in the ground
with a definitionally stable 1.9 so that the developers of important
ruby code like Rails, etc. could start developing versions compatible
with the new language.
I'm a little concerned that some folks are jumping on 1.9 as an
immediate replacement for Ruby 1.8, which it isn't.
···
On Dec 26, 2007 5:39 PM, Windham, Kristopher R. <kriswindham@gmail.com> wrote:
in the Desktop reference by Matz, printed in 2002,
he says ..
"Developmental releases of Ruby always have an odd minor revision
number such as 1.5 or 1.7.
Once a developmental release is stable and finalized, it's then
"promoted" to a stable release. Stable releases always have an even
minor revision number such as 2.0 or3.2. Therefore, releases with
even subversion numbers are stable releases. Releases with odd
subversion numbers are developmental versions..."
I assume this is still the case.
Do not ever use a developmental release for production.
As far as intentions for 1.9.x, I will leave that answer to some one
else.
I'm somehow surprised, because it was named since a long time what is
behind Ruby 1.9.
1) Starting with planned Ruby 1.9.1 Ruby will not follow the even-odd
number scheme, that was followed before. Ruby 1.9.n (n>=1) will be a
stable version, planned for production usage.
2) Ruby 1.9.n (n>=1) contains the ideas from Ruby 2, that are actual
feasible.
3) Work on Ruby 2 didn't start now.
4) Ruby 1.9.0 was released instead of the planned Ruby 1.9.1, because
the trunk was not as stable on 25.12. as everybody wants. It is not
intended as a production version.
5) Ruby 1.9.0 is stable in respect to features, and is from this
viewpoint a reference inplementation, which can be used by developers.
This is what how I understand all the posts an conference videos on the
last year. I hope it is complete an correct (Mats?)
Wolfgang Nádasi-Donner
Yes, it's complete and correct.
To answer the original poster's question, the purpose of Ruby 1.9.0
release announcement on the Christmas day was development driving. We
had tremendous improvements in last few weeks which cannot be achieved
without the goal. Otherwise we had to wait a few more _years_ to get
production stable 1.9 version. Thank you for everyone cooperated.
matz.
···
In message "Re: Purpose of Ruby 1.9?" on Thu, 27 Dec 2007 07:29:41 +0900, Wolfgang N1dasi-onner <ed.odanow@wonado.de> writes:
In message "Re: Purpose of Ruby 1.9?" on Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:57:10 +0900, "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@gmail.com> writes:
- perhaps April?)
* In order to drive development, make intermediate releases regularly
with short (one month?) intervals with the version fixed at 1.9.0
(releases every 29th?)
So I guess this means that version 1.9.0 will change at the end of
each month??? until 1.9.1 is released maybe in April.
If this is the case, I'm not sure just what changed when 1.9.0 was
released on the 25th.
I'm a bit confused.
They will be bug fix versions. The spec will not be changed. If
changed, they were spec bugs.
But will they all be version 1.9.0? What's the meaning of version if
there are multiple drops with the same version number?
···
On Dec 28, 2007 6:46 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
In message "Re: Purpose of Ruby 1.9?" > on Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:57:10 +0900, "Rick DeNatale" <rick.denatale@gmail.com> writes:
>> - perhaps April?)
>> * In order to drive development, make intermediate releases regularly
>> with short (one month?) intervals with the version fixed at 1.9.0
>> (releases every 29th?)
>
>So I guess this means that version 1.9.0 will change at the end of
>each month??? until 1.9.1 is released maybe in April.
>
>If this is the case, I'm not sure just what changed when 1.9.0 was
>released on the 25th.
>
>I'm a bit confused.
They will be bug fix versions. The spec will not be changed. If
changed, they were spec bugs.
I just answered a post from someone on the Textmate forum who
installed Ruby1.9 as ruby. Now he gets a syntax error inside textmate
when he tries to run a ruby program, since Textmate uses ruby
internally, and some of that code ran into one of the syntax
incompatibilities.
···
On Dec 26, 2007 6:11 PM, Dave Thomas <dave@pragprog.com> wrote:
On Dec 26, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> I'm a little concerned that some folks are jumping on 1.9 as an
> immediate replacement for Ruby 1.8, which it isn't.
The reason Rails does not run on 1.9 are to my knowledge incompatibilities, it is not due to 1.9 not being production-ready. People have been sending compatibility patches to Rails, but work remains to be done.
-- fxn
···
On Dec 27, 2007, at 8:53 AM, botp wrote:
On Dec 27, 2007 7:11 AM, Dave Thomas <dave@pragprog.com> wrote:
On Dec 26, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:
I'm a little concerned that some folks are jumping on 1.9 as an
immediate replacement for Ruby 1.8, which it isn't.
I know of at least one bug in 1.9 that breaks certain bits of rails (http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-core/14379\). But it's true that a lot of stuff is just different, that's expected. Ruby 1.9 is not in the general case a drop-in replacement for 1.8
Fred
···
On 27 Dec 2007, at 08:45, Xavier Noria wrote:
On Dec 27, 2007, at 8:53 AM, botp wrote:
On Dec 27, 2007 7:11 AM, Dave Thomas <dave@pragprog.com> wrote:
On Dec 26, 2007, at 4:53 PM, Rick DeNatale wrote:
I'm a little concerned that some folks are jumping on 1.9 as an
immediate replacement for Ruby 1.8, which it isn't.
will it be "safe" to say that the baptism of fire for ruby1.9 is
lettting it run/support rails 2.0.2 without errors?
Wouldn't that be a Rails goal?
The reason Rails does not run on 1.9 are to my knowledge incompatibilities, it is not due to 1.9 not being production-ready. People have been sending compatibility patches to Rails, but work remains to be done.
