Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> Dave Thomas wrote:
>> 2. As a parallel activity, I think we need to make Gem maintainers 
>> aware of the need to make their Gems compatible. We have contact 
>> details in RubyForgeˇ˝starting a maintainers' wiki, and emailing all 
>> maintainers with details, will be a good start.
> 
> Now you feel my pain.
> 
> For the most part this is going to be a chicken and egg problem. People 
> aren't going to make sure gems work well on 1.9 until they feel like 
> they or others are actually starting to use it. Given that 1.9 has still 
> not really become "stable", that's unlikely to happen. And as you say, 
> until the gems are working, people are less likely to start using 1.9 
> for real work. This is the problem all non-MRI implementations face, not 
> just 1.9. And just like other impls 1.9 is going to have to pay its dues 
> by showing that it can be as stable, execution and feature-wise, as MRI, 
> as well as providing enough compelling features for people to risk a move.
> 
> I don't think gem maintainers are unaware that 1.9 is out there. I just 
> think they have more important things to work on than porting to a 
> still-unstable development release with still-changing features and no 
> clear specification or migration path. And that's not going to change 
> just by prodding them with a stick.

It is not just prodding them with a stick - we have gem maintainers who 
haven't integrated patches, or even responded to email.

http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/01/04/Builder-on-1-9
http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/01/07/Rake-Contrib-for-1-9

- Sam Ruby