librelist archives

« back to archive

Current status on !~ 1.9.2

Current status on !~ 1.9.2

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2012-02-19 @ 21:01
Hey errybody:

Check it out: http://travis-ci.org/#!/steveklabnik/rstat.us/builds/702918

tl;dr: we only work on 1.9.2.

JRuby freaks out about cexts. No surprises.

Rubinius says it's missing Hashie. Not sure what's up there.

1.9.3 and ruby-head both have some nils where they didn't expect it...

This is all just for your information, I'm not sure anyone is actually
trying to support these rubies.

Re: [rstatus] Current status on !~ 1.9.2

From:
Gregory Brown
Date:
2012-02-19 @ 23:24
I imagine that supporting 1.9.3 is at good idea, if not a top priority. 
Personally I've been using 1.9.3 exclusively for a while now.

-greg

On 2/19/12 4:01 PM, Steve Klabnik wrote:
> Hey errybody:
>
> Check it out: http://travis-ci.org/#!/steveklabnik/rstat.us/builds/702918
>
> tl;dr: we only work on 1.9.2.
>
> JRuby freaks out about cexts. No surprises.
>
> Rubinius says it's missing Hashie. Not sure what's up there.
>
> 1.9.3 and ruby-head both have some nils where they didn't expect it...
>
> This is all just for your information, I'm not sure anyone is actually
> trying to support these rubies.

Re: [rstatus] Current status on !~ 1.9.2

From:
Carol Nichols
Date:
2012-02-20 @ 03:52
Yeah, I'd personally love to see 1.9.3 and rbx support, but I don't think
working on compatibility with those is at the top of my list. I'll file
issues for them and see if anyone's interested in working on them.
-Carol


On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Gregory Brown <
gregory_brown@letterboxes.org> wrote:

> I imagine that supporting 1.9.3 is at good idea, if not a top priority.
> Personally I've been using 1.9.3 exclusively for a while now.
>
> -greg
>
> On 2/19/12 4:01 PM, Steve Klabnik wrote:
> > Hey errybody:
> >
> > Check it out:
> http://travis-ci.org/#!/steveklabnik/rstat.us/builds/702918
> >
> > tl;dr: we only work on 1.9.2.
> >
> > JRuby freaks out about cexts. No surprises.
> >
> > Rubinius says it's missing Hashie. Not sure what's up there.
> >
> > 1.9.3 and ruby-head both have some nils where they didn't expect it...
> >
> > This is all just for your information, I'm not sure anyone is actually
> > trying to support these rubies.
>
>

Re: [rstatus] Current status on !~ 1.9.2

From:
Gregory Brown
Date:
2012-02-20 @ 04:57
On 2/19/12 10:52 PM, Carol Nichols wrote:
> Yeah, I'd personally love to see 1.9.3 and rbx support, but I don't
> think working on compatibility with those is at the top of my list. I'll
> file issues for them and see if anyone's interested in working on them.

Yeah, there are definitely bigger fish to fry. But please keep in mind 
that "1.9.3 and rbx support" are two totally different points. See my 
response to Dave about that.

-greg

Re: [rstatus] Current status on !~ 1.9.2

From:
Dave Wilkinson
Date:
2012-02-20 @ 04:09
Supporting the latest of anything should not be a priority for any project
that wishes to mature. I understand that Greg is probably coming from a
"appease/attract new developers" mindset, but the differences between 1.9.2
and 1.9.3, for instance, are not enough for pushing this as top priority.
We must remember that versioning systems and environment tools like bundler
and rvm are designed not to make upgrading easier, but to make staying
behind more feasible and *eventually upgrading* more graceful.

The same goes for the priority in our rails upgrades. There is just no
reason to do it. Ruby 1.9.2 is a stable platform in which to design,
implement, and deploy software. Therefore, we use it, until somebody out
there actually devotes time in their schedule to upgrade us. :) But,
seriously, people out there thinking about doing that... we have other
issues that should be solved, feature requests to handle, and such little
time ourselves (everyone here having a day job) to do them! Instead, let's
make rstat.us stable and awesome for everybody!

On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Carol Nichols <carol.nichols@gmail.com>wrote:

> Yeah, I'd personally love to see 1.9.3 and rbx support, but I don't think
> working on compatibility with those is at the top of my list. I'll file
> issues for them and see if anyone's interested in working on them.
> -Carol
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Gregory Brown <
> gregory_brown@letterboxes.org> wrote:
>
>> I imagine that supporting 1.9.3 is at good idea, if not a top priority.
>> Personally I've been using 1.9.3 exclusively for a while now.
>>
>> -greg
>>
>> On 2/19/12 4:01 PM, Steve Klabnik wrote:
>> > Hey errybody:
>> >
>> > Check it out:
>> http://travis-ci.org/#!/steveklabnik/rstat.us/builds/702918
>> >
>> > tl;dr: we only work on 1.9.2.
>> >
>> > JRuby freaks out about cexts. No surprises.
>> >
>> > Rubinius says it's missing Hashie. Not sure what's up there.
>> >
>> > 1.9.3 and ruby-head both have some nils where they didn't expect it...
>> >
>> > This is all just for your information, I'm not sure anyone is actually
>> > trying to support these rubies.
>>
>>
>

Re: [rstatus] Current status on !~ 1.9.2

From:
Gregory Brown
Date:
2012-02-20 @ 04:51
Dave,

I should clarify, because my comment wasn't actually about appeasing or 
attracting new developers at all.

I view switching forward to 1.9.3 as being a smart move in the long run 
because Ruby does only a mediocre job of back-porting bug fixes to old 
releases. This means that as time goes on, 1.9.2 will be more poorly 
supported than 1.9.3 is.

Of course, another thing that is true about Ruby is that new versions 
almost certainly cause new problems, people were having issues with 
segfaults on 1.9.3 when it was first released, and that sort of thing is 
to be expected.

Choosing when to switch is a delicate balance, and as long as you're not 
running into bugs with 1.9.2 that may not be slated for a 1.9.2 fix, 
then I totally agree that with limited resources available, that's not 
at the top of the priority list.

However, there is little comparison to be made between choosing a Ruby 
version and choosing a Rails version, because the projects have entirely 
different release management policies. There is also little comparison 
to be made between choosing the right version of standard Ruby to 
support and choosing whether or not to support alternative versions, 
because the reason for supporting alternative implementations is 
entirely different than the reason for supporting a particular version 
of standard Ruby. The former is indeed about making the project 
available in a broader range of environments, the latter is about 
maintenance policies for existing developers.

That said, because rstat.us is not exactly something that someone is 
just going to install casually, it's fair to say that things like 
rvm/rbenv make it a lot more easy to freeze and support a particular 
version of Ruby at a time. The point I wanted to express is that the 
time will come (within the next few months, most likely) where 1.9.3 is 
a more easy to maintain choice than 1.9.2 would be. At that point, it'd 
be worth switching over if it's not too hard to do so.

Personally, I worry about the Ruby core team's "open source must move 
forward or die" mentality, particularly when it comes to maintaining a 
programming language (rather than just a program), but this is the world 
we live in :-/

-greg

On 2/19/12 11:09 PM, Dave Wilkinson wrote:
> Supporting the latest of anything should not be a priority for any
> project that wishes to mature. I understand that Greg is probably coming
> from a "appease/attract new developers" mindset, but the differences
> between 1.9.2 and 1.9.3, for instance, are not enough for pushing this
> as top priority. We must remember that versioning systems and
> environment tools like bundler and rvm are designed not to make
> upgrading easier, but to make staying behind more feasible and
> /eventually upgrading/ more graceful.
>
> The same goes for the priority in our rails upgrades. There is just no
> reason to do it. Ruby 1.9.2 is a stable platform in which to design,
> implement, and deploy software. Therefore, we use it, until somebody out
> there actually devotes time in their schedule to upgrade us. :) But,
> seriously, people out there thinking about doing that... we have other
> issues that should be solved, feature requests to handle, and such
> little time ourselves (everyone here having a day job) to do them!
> Instead, let's make rstat.us <http://rstat.us> stable and awesome for
> everybody!
>
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 10:52 PM, Carol Nichols <carol.nichols@gmail.com
> <mailto:carol.nichols@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Yeah, I'd personally love to see 1.9.3 and rbx support, but I don't
>     think working on compatibility with those is at the top of my list.
>     I'll file issues for them and see if anyone's interested in working
>     on them.
>     -Carol
>
>
>
>     On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Gregory Brown
>     <gregory_brown@letterboxes.org
>     <mailto:gregory_brown@letterboxes.org>> wrote:
>
>         I imagine that supporting 1.9.3 is at good idea, if not a top
>         priority.
>         Personally I've been using 1.9.3 exclusively for a while now.
>
>         -greg
>
>         On 2/19/12 4:01 PM, Steve Klabnik wrote:
>          > Hey errybody:
>          >
>          > Check it out:
>         http://travis-ci.org/#!/steveklabnik/rstat.us/builds/702918
>         <http://travis-ci.org/#%21/steveklabnik/rstat.us/builds/702918>
>          >
>          > tl;dr: we only work on 1.9.2.
>          >
>          > JRuby freaks out about cexts. No surprises.
>          >
>          > Rubinius says it's missing Hashie. Not sure what's up there.
>          >
>          > 1.9.3 and ruby-head both have some nils where they didn't
>         expect it...
>          >
>          > This is all just for your information, I'm not sure anyone is
>         actually
>          > trying to support these rubies.
>
>
>