Issue #7820 has been updated by jonforums (Jon Forums).


A great idea to simplify and clarify!

Perhaps listing support tiers instead of "well-cared" and "maintained"?

  * Tier 1: the platform has a public CI (normally green) and is maintained by a ruby-core committer
  * Tier 2: the platform is maintained by a ruby-core committer
  * 3rd Party: best-effort support by members of the ruby community (e.g. - https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ruby_SIG)

Note that the 3rd Party tier is an opportunity for commercial and non-commercial parties to get a form of (non-endorsed) advertisement.

While it should be self evident that just because a platform (e.g. Arch Linux) is not listed in any support tier doesn't mean MRI won't build/test/install on that platform, consider adding something much shorter than the sentence you just finished. Essentially, "try it, and if it breaks let us know."

Consider dropping the OS version as it's misleading and often out-of-date. For example, listing "Ubuntu 10.04 64bit" can be misinterpreted as meaning ruby-core is only supporting an outdated OS version. I know this to be false as I regularly test on Ubuntu 12.10 32bit and 64bit.

Instead of listing mingw, mswin32, mswin64 consider:

  * Tier 1:
    * Windows 7/8 32/64bit (nobu)

  * Tier 2:
    * Windows 7/8 32/64bit (usa)

Yes, I'm in favor of dropping "official" support for XP and ready to dodge the arrows for advocating for it ;)

Jon
----------------------------------------
Bug #7820: Let's decide Ruby 2.0 supported platform list
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/7820#change-36108

Author: mame (Yusuke Endoh)
Status: Assigned
Priority: Normal
Assignee: mame (Yusuke Endoh)
Category: 
Target version: 2.0.0
ruby -v: 2.0.0-rc2


I'm sorry I didn't talk about Ruby 2.0 supported platforms earlier.

At first, I think that the primary purpose of "the supported platform list" is to help users see how much Ruby is tested in their platforms.

For this purpose, the current list for Ruby 1.9 [1] has too many categories with difficult, developer-oriented rules, and its wording like "Best effort" may sound too optimistic a little for users.
In addition, nowadays, there are some useful CIs available, such as rubyci.org (by Naruse-san) and ci.rubyinstaller.org (by Naruse-san and Luis Lavena + EngineYard).

[1] http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby-trunk/wiki/SupportedPlatforms

So, I propose two rough and simple categories:

  - well-cared: the platform is included in rubyci.org or ci.rubyinstallers, and is usually green
  - maintained: not "well-cared", but there is a platform maintainer

(I'd like a native speaker to propose a better wording)

* well-cared
  * Ubuntu 10.04 64-bit
  * Debian 6.0.5 (wyhaines?)
  * CentOS 5.6 x86_64/i386
  * RHEL, CentOS6 (kosaki)
  * FreeBSD (knu)
  * Mac OS X (mrkn)
  * mingw (nobu)

* maintained
  * nacl (actually inclueded in Ruby CI, but looks constantly red´╝?
  * mswin32, mswin64 (usa)
  * CentOS5 (Eric Wong)
  * IA-64 (Debian GNU/Linux) (takano32)
  * OpenBSD (Jeremy Evans)
  * AIX (kanemoto)
  * Solaris (ngoto)
  * Symbian OS (azov)

Some may think that a "platform" consists of not only OS and CPU, but also a compiler and related libraries.  However, in terms of the purpose, it is not necessarily useful to make it pedantic, I think.

Note that this is just an idea.  What do you think?

-- 
Yusuke Endoh <mame / tsg.ne.jp>


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