On 10/3/07, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter / sun.com> wrote:
> Rick DeNatale wrote:
> > If I understand what Matz said earlier on this thread, not really.
> >
> > What we used to think of as 2.0 wlll now be 1.9.1 which will be
> > considered (feature?) stable.
> >
> > I interpret this as meaning that the experimental changes will stop
> > when 1.9.1 is released and 1.9.1+ releases will be implementation
> > improvements only, and any new language changes would be in an
> > eventual 2.0 stream.
> >
> > Did I get that right Matz-sen sei?
>
> Hmm, that's not what I got. I was still under the impression that 1.9.1
> would include experimental language features that may or may not survive
> into future releases, and that the primary focus of getting 1.9.1 out is
> to expose the new VM and m17n and a few other big additions to a wider
> audience, with the understanding that other areas of the system are
> still in flux. I say that's a very sensible idea, and I imagine many
> people could start "trying out" 1.9.1, but that in general it would not
> be a good release to start doing "mass porting" of 1.8-compatible apps.
>
> But I eagerly await Matsumoto-san's response! :)

My impression came from Matz's response to you


>So would the recommendation be that people running production
>applications remain on 1.8 series?

>> Honestly speaking, 1.9.1 at the end of this year would not be
>> "production ready".  Despite that production code require months to
>> adopt compatibility issues between 1.8 and 1.9.  As 1.9 used by many,
>> its stability will rise soon (hopefully).

Which gives me a picture of production code USING ruby 1.8 being
adapted to a stable 1.9.x language definition thus driving defect
reduction in the 1.9.1 implementation rather than additional language
experimentation.

Of course I could well be wrong.

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/