I just updated my Ubuntu system and was a bit surprised to find:
$ ruby -v
ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72) [i486-linux]
I've heard nothing but bad commentary on this version of Ruby. What's
the word? Should I down-grade?
This happened to me, and it was an "uh-oh" moment for me too. I think
my bad feeling about it comes from Rails. Although I've heard that
Rails 2.1+ has 1.8.7 compatibility, the official site (http://
Ruby on Rails — A web-app framework that includes everything needed to create database-backed web applications according to the Model-View-Controller (MVC) pattern.) hasn't been updated with respect to its
stance on ruby versions.
-- Mark.
···
On Nov 26, 7:55 am, Trans <transf...@gmail.com> wrote:
I just updated my Ubuntu system and was a bit surprised to find:
$ ruby -v
ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72) [i486-linux]I've heard nothing but bad commentary on this version of Ruby. What's
the word? Should I down-grade?
I've heard nothing but bad commentary on this version of Ruby. What's
the word? Should I down-grade?
For better or worse, the 187 branch is basically the only one that gets
any attention from the core developers [i.e. patches] so...I'd say
either one is ok.
-=R
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Using it since the release in spring, had an issue in the prerelease
version, but nothing bad happened since.
···
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
I just updated my Ubuntu system and was a bit surprised to find:
$ ruby -v
ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72) [i486-linux]I've heard nothing but bad commentary on this version of Ruby. What's
the word? Should I down-grade?
I abandoned it quickly when at least one of my libraries (use) because
of a bug. That, and Rails (for work).
Regards,
Dan
···
On Nov 26, 5:55 am, Trans <transf...@gmail.com> wrote:
I just updated my Ubuntu system and was a bit surprised to find:
$ ruby -v
ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72) [i486-linux]I've heard nothing but bad commentary on this version of Ruby. What's
the word? Should I down-grade?
Trans wrote:
I just updated my Ubuntu system and was a bit surprised to find:
$ ruby -v
ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72) [i486-linux]I've heard nothing but bad commentary on this version of Ruby. What's
the word? Should I down-grade?
FWIW, we've decided not to support 1.8.7 in JRuby. That may change if everyone starts depending on 1.8.7-only features, but I sure hope that doesn't happen.
- Charlie
As you may know Ruby 1.8.7 don't compatable with Rails(http://
Ruby on Rails — A web-app framework that includes everything needed to create database-backed web applications according to the Model-View-Controller (MVC) pattern.)
We recommend Ruby 1.8.6 for use with Rails. Ruby 1.8.7, 1.8.5, 1.8.4
and 1.8.2 are still usable too, but version 1.8.3 is not.
Ruby 1.8.7 still has some bugs to straighten out.
Step-by-step to downgrade Ruby to 1.8.6 manual
http://railsgeek.com/2008/11/27/ubuntu-8-10-downgrade-ruby-1-8-7-to-1-8-6
···
On Nov 27, 1:10 am, Daniel Berger <djber...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 26, 5:55 am, Trans <transf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just updated my Ubuntu system and was a bit surprised to find:
> $ ruby -v
> ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72) [i486-linux]> I've heard nothing but bad commentary on this version of Ruby. What's
> the word? Should I down-grade?I abandoned it quickly when at least one of my libraries (use) because
of a bug. That, and Rails (for work).Regards,
Dan
As you may know Ruby 1.8.7 don't compatable with
Rails(Ruby on Rails — A web-app framework that includes everything needed to create database-backed web applications according to the Model-View-Controller (MVC) pattern.)
We recommend Ruby 1.8.6 for use with Rails. Ruby 1.8.7, 1.8.5, 1.8.4 and
1.8.2 are still usable too, but version 1.8.3 is not.
Ruby 1.8.7 still has some bugs to straighten out.
Step-by-step to downgrade Ruby to 1.8.6 manual
http://railsgeek.com/2008/11/27/ubuntu-8-10-downgrade-ruby-1-8-7-to-1-8-6
Daniel Berger wrote:
···
On Nov 26, 5:55�am, Trans <transf...@gmail.com> wrote:
I just updated my Ubuntu system and was a bit surprised to find:
� $ ruby -v
� ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72) [i486-linux]I've heard nothing but bad commentary on this version of Ruby. What's
the word? Should I down-grade?I abandoned it quickly when at least one of my libraries (use) because
of a bug. That, and Rails (for work).Regards,
Dan
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Though support was dropped for Ruby <= 1.8.5, 1.8.6 is still
officially supported, AFAIK.
$ ruby -v
ruby 1.8.6 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 287) [i686-darwin9.4.0]
-greg
···
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Roger Pack <rogerpack2005@gmail.com> wrote:
I've heard nothing but bad commentary on this version of Ruby. What's
the word? Should I down-grade?For better or worse, the 187 branch is basically the only one that gets
any attention from the core developers [i.e. patches] so...I'd say
either one is ok.
--
Technical Blaag at: http://blog.majesticseacreature.com
Non-tech stuff at: http://metametta.blogspot.com
"Ruby Best Practices" Book now in O'Reilly Roughcuts:
http://rubybestpractices.com
Uh, this page *explicitely* says: "We recommend Ruby 1.8.7 for use with Rails".
···
On 27 nov. 08, at 16:27, Anatoly Mikhailov wrote:
As you may know Ruby 1.8.7 don't compatable with
Rails(Ruby on Rails — A web-app framework that includes everything needed to create database-backed web applications according to the Model-View-Controller (MVC) pattern.)
--
Luc Heinrich - luc@honk-honk.com
Though support was dropped for Ruby <= 1.8.5, 1.8.6 is still
officially supported, AFAIK.
It is indeed officially supported but, judging from the commit logs,
1.8.7 and 1.9 get WAY more attention. If that's a factor in deciding or
not 
].
-=R
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Yay! It's been fixed. Probably due to this thread.
···
On Nov 28, 3:36 am, Luc Heinrich <l...@honk-honk.com> wrote:
On 27 nov. 08, at 16:27, Anatoly Mikhailov wrote:
> As you may know Ruby 1.8.7 don't compatable with
> Rails(http://www.rubyonrails.org/down\)Uh, this page *explicitely* says: "We recommend Ruby 1.8.7 for use
with Rails".
As they should. The fact that Ruby 1.8.6 is not changing much is a feature.
Ruby 1.9.1 is being stabilized for its first production ready release,
so it's no surprise that it is active.
But why *should* Ruby 1.8.7 be extensively patched? One can only hope
it is to remove all of the 1.8.7-isms and bring it back to
compatibility with Ruby 1.8.
-greg
···
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Roger Pack <rogerpack2005@gmail.com> wrote:
Though support was dropped for Ruby <= 1.8.5, 1.8.6 is still
officially supported, AFAIK.It is indeed officially supported but, judging from the commit logs,
1.8.7 and 1.9 get WAY more attention. If that's a factor in deciding or
not
--
Technical Blaag at: http://blog.majesticseacreature.com
Non-tech stuff at: http://metametta.blogspot.com
"Ruby Best Practices" Book now in O'Reilly Roughcuts:
http://rubybestpractices.com
Guys, I am a bit confused 
So is it (not) recommended to switch to 1.8.7? I'd like to, but I am not sure after this thread?
Cheers,
Peter
···
___
http://www.rubyrailways.com
http://scrubyt.org
On 2008.12.02., at 4:49, Mark Thomas wrote:
On Nov 28, 3:36 am, Luc Heinrich <l...@honk-honk.com> wrote:
On 27 nov. 08, at 16:27, Anatoly Mikhailov wrote:
As you may know Ruby 1.8.7 don't compatable with
Rails(Ruby on Rails — A web-app framework that includes everything needed to create database-backed web applications according to the Model-View-Controller (MVC) pattern.)Uh, this page *explicitely* says: "We recommend Ruby 1.8.7 for use
with Rails".Yay! It's been fixed. Probably due to this thread.
As they should. The fact that Ruby 1.8.6 is not changing much is a
feature.
Ruby 1.9.1 is being stabilized for its first production ready release,
so it's no surprise that it is active.But why *should* Ruby 1.8.7 be extensively patched? One can only hope
it is to remove all of the 1.8.7-isms and bring it back to
compatibility with Ruby 1.8.
LOL. Yeah I'm wish you on this one. That is is somewhat annoying to
have to support the new version. To me, though, since I'm interested in
hacking core and getting patches accepted, 1.8.7 is probably a better
bet.
Unfortunately, also, judging from the latest 1.8.7 changelog [1] I'd
wager there are quite a few bugs that get squashed in 1.8.7 but not in
1.8.6, but hopefully they don't matter
-=R
[1] http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/repositories/show/ruby-187 at the
bottom
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Put simply: 1.8.7 has features and behavioral changes that are compatible with neither 1.9 nor 1.8.6. So it's up to you.
Peter Szinek wrote:
···
Guys, I am a bit confused
Cheers,
Peter
___
http://www.rubyrailways.com
http://scrubyt.orgOn 2008.12.02., at 4:49, Mark Thomas wrote:
On Nov 28, 3:36 am, Luc Heinrich <l...@honk-honk.com> wrote:
On 27 nov. 08, at 16:27, Anatoly Mikhailov wrote:
As you may know Ruby 1.8.7 don't compatable with
Rails(Ruby on Rails — A web-app framework that includes everything needed to create database-backed web applications according to the Model-View-Controller (MVC) pattern.)Uh, this page *explicitely* says: "We recommend Ruby 1.8.7 for use
with Rails".Yay! It's been fixed. Probably due to this thread.