On 8/21/06, William Grosso <wgrosso / wgrosso.com> wrote:
>
> Oops. Sorry. Meant to type
>
> -- 2.0 will support the same language as 1.9, but with a different
>     underlying implementation.
>
>
> Bill
>
>
> vshepelev / imho.com.ua wrote:
> > William Grosso (wgrosso / wgrosso.com)
> > 21/8/2006 18:26:41
> >
> >> -- 2.0 will support the same language as 1.8, but with a different
> >> underlying implementation.
> >
> > Wrong, AFAIK.
> > The 1.9 (experimental) would once became 2.0 (stable).
> > The language WOULD be differ from 1.8, hence the major version.

Doesn't Ruby version numbering follow the same general scheme as the
Linux kernel?

Version Major.Minor[.sub-version]

Versions with even minor numbers are considered the stable "production" branch.
Versions with odd minor numbers are considered experimental where
features which might produce incompatibilities and breakage are added,
tried out, and perhaps removed before becoming part of the
specification if not the implementation of the next stable branch.

Or do I have it wrong?

-- 
Rick DeNatale

My blog on Ruby
http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/