Hi,

2011/1/17 Zeno Davatz <redmine / ruby-lang.org>:
> 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 areopied from Oniguruma but not all. This scares the living frogs out of Grandmothers ;) and enterprises.

The year 2002 is the night before 1.8 is released, so we decided to
import Oniguruma in 1.9.
And the time Oniguruma is introduced on the main stage is not 1.9.2.
It is 1.9.0 in 2007.

> 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?

Do you know Oniguruma gem? http://oniguruma.rubyforge.org/

> 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 - veryggressive. 2.6.38-rc8 will be the opposite, very timid.

Did you read http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/tags/v1_8_7/NEWS ?

> 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 aompliment as many enterprises are still using 1.8.6.

The lack of /g and /G is by design, 1.9.2 never *catch up* it.
Moreover Oniguruma patch's oniguruma is 2.5.8.

> 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.

I still can't understand why Oniguruma supports migration.

> 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/Y1bQTan you point me to a current or old policy in respect to consistency ofuby?

"Consistency is not a goal of Ruby" is still correct.
Anyway "1.8.8 should include Oniguruma" is not a consistency problem.

-- 
NARUSE, Yui  <naruse / airemix.jp>