David Heinemeier Hansson wrote:
...

> 
> It is my ever humble opinion that choosing Rails is well-worth migrating 
> 10 lines of code to move through the 0.9.x releases. So I found 
> statements like "Rails shouldn't be promoted before 1.0" half-way funny 
> and half-way insulting. I'd argue that if nothing else, the time freed 
> up from not having to do many of the tasks Rails intends to relieve you 
> off should provide plenty of buffer to 1) stay informed of documented 
> breakage between releases and 2) apply the outlined fixes.

I don't think anyone has said that Rails shouldn't be promoted before 
1.0.  But there is a (perhaps small) audience for whom any code change 
mandated by a version upgrade will be viewed as a significant flaw. 
Even when there is clear documentation explaining this.

I'm just inclined to say, "Oh well,"  because no matter how hard one 
tries to alert people to the risks of pre-1.0 software, somebody 
someplace will just not listen.

Still, reading through the OnLAMP Rails article, I don't see anything 
that warning people that Rails is pre-1.0 and that there is a risk of 
compatibility issues moving towards 1.0.  So maybe people learning about 
Rails from that article have a right to complain.

> 
>> But the OP also appeared distressed that many new applications (e.g., 
>> Rails) required 1.8, and that new apps not running with old versions 
>> of Ruby was perhaps a significant problem; opinions vary.
> 
> 
> I can only speak for myself personally, but I'm not interested in 
> working with a 2 year-old version of Ruby in order to make it easier for 
> some potential users to stay put because they can't upgrade for various 
> reasons. Languages, frameworks, and applications are constantly faced 
> with decisions that might decrease their market potential. As long as 
> they're chosen consciously, it's part of the bargain.
> 
...

> 
> And I must admit that by the rate of growth experienced in the Rails 
> community, I'm not currently looking for leverages to increase that 
> growth by accepting more responsibilities, such as stricter non-breakage 
> obedience.

This is the trade-off path that probably most developers pick.  If it is 
going to take me X hours or days or weeks longer to release something, 
there better be some reasonable payoff, and I just don't see the gain in 
users stuck on old version of Ruby to be worth it.

Anyone who thinks otherwise can take any existing GPL'ed Ruby app and 
back-port it.

James