On Oct 3, 9:46=A0am, Dave Thomas <d... / pragprog.com> wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2008, at 11:35 PM, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>
> Yes: most of the last minute issues folks are discussing now are =A0
> because there weren't many people using 1.9. Most of the =A0
> default_internal discussion was brought about because JEG actually =A0
> tried to write something using the new encoding scheme. Similarly, the =
=A0
> miniunit discussions all came about because suddenly people were made =A0
> to use it in the 1.9 tree.
>
> One of the fundamental drivers behind agility is feedback. When the =A0
> "experimental" branches are sequestered away like this, the number of =A0
> people using the new release is small, and the feedback you get is =A0
> poor. As a result, the developers tend to tinker in something of a =A0
> vacuum. The release gets bigger and bigger, and the differences =A0
> between the new and the old get greater and greater. Then, when you do =
=A0
> finally drop the new 2.0, people will feel there's such a major =A0
> difference they will be reluctant to change.
>
> I think the discipline of frequent, fixed freezes and releases can =A0
> only help the language development process. I'm disappointed that this =
=A0
> latest freeze has become slushy.

It would help if 1.8.7 was for real, as it is intended to provide some
of the features of 1.9 while being essentially backward compatible
with 1.8.6. Actually, I think a lot of us would agree, 1.8.7 ought to
have been 1.9. That would have allowed it a little more flexibility in
migrating us to the current version which has many changes. But that
of course would force the current 1.9 version to 1.10 which isn't
liked... Are we being stymied by version number ideals?

Taking a step back might not be a bad idea. Consider how poorly this
transition is going compared to the transition from 1.6 to 1.8.

T.