Hello,
www.ruby-lang.org had been down for several hours, but it’s has been recovered.
The reason why it was down is that Radiant CMS tried to fetch
RubyForge top projects data and timeouted.
I modified the top projects plugin not to fetch RubyForge top projects data.
–
Shugo Maeda
Thanks, i was trying it to find out which the latest 1.9.3 release is
(right there on top:) )
Is there a way of finding this out ? Does RVM know ? Or will this
website always have the latest version posted on the front page.
What is the difference between 1.9.3-head and 1.9.3-p0. A few days back
I googled and got "-head". However, RVM kept mentioning "-p0".
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
If I understand correctly:
* 1.9.3-p0 is the current release version. The -p0 means "patch number
zero".
* 1.9.3-head is the cutting-edge version in the main development
repository, which may well include some incomplete feature additions or
changes.
Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 10:48:29PM +0900, R. Kumar wrote:
Thanks, i was trying it to find out which the latest 1.9.3 release is
(right there on top:) )Is there a way of finding this out ? Does RVM know ? Or will this
website always have the latest version posted on the front page.What is the difference between 1.9.3-head and 1.9.3-p0. A few days back
I googled and got "-head". However, RVM kept mentioning "-p0".
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
If I understand correctly:
* 1.9.3-p0 is the current release version. The -p0 means "patch number
zero".* 1.9.3-head is the cutting-edge version in the main development
repository, which may well include some incomplete feature additions
or
changes.Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.
I tried setting rvm's default to 1.9.3 without mentioning "-head"
explicitly. Instead of using the -head installed already, it told me
something like "you don't have -p0 installed." So is rvm always aware of
the latest stable version?
It also strangely kept throwing up this message:
"A RVM version 1.9.2 is installed yet 1.7.2 is loaded."
Google has nothing to say about this.
Acco to what you say about -head being cutting edge, this means the
-head on my disk could be outdated. How, do i know when the head is
updated ?
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
I don't know if rvm distinguishes yet, but I'm going to assume it does.
1.9.3-head should be the head of the 1_9_3 branch or at least the head of the 1_9 branch. It can/will contain unreleased changes, but no feature additions.
trunk proper has cut over to 2.0 already and WILL contain feature additions and, more than likely, unstable code.
On Nov 18, 2011, at 08:29 , Chad Perrin wrote:
* 1.9.3-p0 is the current release version. The -p0 means "patch number
zero".* 1.9.3-head is the cutting-edge version in the main development
repository, which may well include some incomplete feature additions or
changes.
"A RVM version 1.9.2 is installed yet 1.7.2 is loaded."
Google has nothing to say about this.
But I think the error message continues to say
start a new shell or type 'rvm reload' to fix this
Thanks for the correction. I learned something new today.
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 05:14:25AM +0900, Ryan Davis wrote:
On Nov 18, 2011, at 08:29 , Chad Perrin wrote:
> * 1.9.3-p0 is the current release version. The -p0 means "patch number
> zero".
>
> * 1.9.3-head is the cutting-edge version in the main development
> repository, which may well include some incomplete feature additions or
> changes.I don't know if rvm distinguishes yet, but I'm going to assume it does.
1.9.3-head should be the head of the 1_9_3 branch or at least the head
of the 1_9 branch. It can/will contain unreleased changes, but no
feature additions.trunk proper has cut over to 2.0 already and WILL contain feature
additions and, more than likely, unstable code.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
rvm follows the latest "stable" version with a very small delay.
You can see which version rvm selects by default as follows:
$ rvm get latest
$ rvm reload
$ rvm list known
...
[ruby-]1.9.3-preview1
[ruby-]1.9.3-rc1
[ruby-]1.9.3[-p0]
[ruby-]1.9.3-head
The [-p0] indicates that at this time, the -p0 patchlevel is the
default patch level for ruby 1.9.3.
Before 1.9.3[-p0] , 1.9.3[-rc1] was the default for a certain time
(it changed from -rc1 to -p0 around 3 Nov 2011).
So yes, if you say e.g.
$ rvm use 1.9.3 # indicating 1.9.3-rc1 in October 2011
this was 1.9.3[-rc1] for a certain time, but when 1.9.3[-p0] comes out
and becomes the default, the same command
$ rvm use 1.9.3 # indicating 1.9.3-p0 now since Nov 2011
will suddenly fail if you had not yet installed 1.9.3-p0.
You can also upgrade all your existing gemsets from 1.9.3-rc1 to 1.9.3-p0
with
$ rvm upgrade ruby-1.9.3-rc1 ruby-1.9.3 # implicit ruby-1.9.3 is
ruby-1.9.3-p0
HTH,
Peter
On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 8:04 PM, R. Kumar <sentinel1879@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I understand correctly:
>
> * 1.9.3-p0 is the current release version. The -p0 means "patch number
> zero".
>
> * 1.9.3-head is the cutting-edge version in the main development
> repository, which may well include some incomplete feature additions
> or
> changes.
>
> Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.I tried setting rvm's default to 1.9.3 without mentioning "-head"
explicitly. Instead of using the -head installed already, it told me
something like "you don't have -p0 installed." So is rvm always aware of
the latest stable version?
Steve Klabnik wrote in post #1032613:
"A RVM version 1.9.2 is installed yet 1.7.2 is loaded."
Google has nothing to say about this.But I think the error message continues to say
yes, it asked me to do a `rvm reload`. But it asked me this each time i
switched to 1.9.3, or ran an `rvm list`. So I was wondering what i had
done wrong.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
You can also upgrade all your existing gemsets from 1.9.3-rc1 to
1.9.3-p0
with$ rvm upgrade ruby-1.9.3-rc1 ruby-1.9.3 # implicit ruby-1.9.3 is
ruby-1.9.3-p0HTH,
Peter
Thanks a lot peter. Great reply. And you've also answered my next
question about upgrading gemsets when installing a new version 
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.