Issue #4239 has been updated by Zeno Davatz.


Dear Yui-san

Thank you for your reply.

First of all I do not want to blame anyone. I want to understand and improve.

No such discussion, that is interesting but according to http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-dev/16196
 Oniguruma was introduced in 2002. So there is my question. Somebody introduces a very useful new feature in 2002, people start building on that but the real patch is never applied. Instead in Version 1.9.2 some features are copied from Oniguruma but not all. This scares the living frogs out of Grandmothers ;) and enterprises.

That is what does not make sense to me. That is what I mean by Chronologically logical. The Oniguruma-Features where introduced in 2002 but never made it into the main code. But obviously many people used it. 1.8.6 became very stable because important features where not merged in? I am asking a stupid rhetorical question here: Was the merging to timid then? Was the release cycle too long? That is what I like about the kernel release cycle. You know when to be timid and when to be courageous with new features (it took Linus a lot of effort to get there). Here you see how Linus merges a brand new feature right after 2.6.37: http://url.ba/2dam - very aggressive. 2.6.38-rc8 will be the opposite, very timid.

Yui Naruse wrote: 
>I must add one more requirement:
>* the Ruby 1.8.8 regexp must be compatible with 1.8.7

As far as I can tell 1.8.8 with the Oniguruma-Patch would be compatible. And it would also be a bridge to 1.9.2. I guess the problem is more that 1.9.2 would have to catch up with 1.8.8 in terms of Regexp. But that is less of a problem because 1.8.6 is still "tooo" stable ;). And I consider that a compliment as many enterprises are still using 1.8.6.

Yui Naruse wrote:
> I think they are Rails users.
> Their answer is showed by Rails 3.

Well, Enterprise users want to depend on Ruby not on a App that is build with Ruby. We do not build on Rails. We build on Ruby. But sure, Ruby on Rails is the "RedHat" of Ruby (but it should not be considered the only one).

So I am with Rick but I think it is not just the numbers it is also the timing cycle and it is Oniguruma.

Actually I would also like to ask the question literally: Why does Matz say/think Ruby does not haveto/should not be consistent? http://bit.ly/Y1bQT - Can you point me to a current or old policy in respect to consistency of Ruby?

Thank you for your time.

Best
Zeno
----------------------------------------
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/4239

----------------------------------------
http://redmine.ruby-lang.org