1.9

[Rong]

Does anyone have any idea when 1.9 will be ready for production
release?

 

[James Gray]

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

 

[David Masover]

It is expected to release a few days before Christmas.

Has anyone said which Christmas?


Besides which, I imagine that 1.9 will be "ready for production" when it's
called 2.0 instead.

 

[David Masover]

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.)

 

[Gregory Brown]

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.

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

 

[James Gray]

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

 

[James Gray]

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:
=> false

James Edward Gray II