Ola Bini wrote:
> Rick DeNatale wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Ezra Zygmuntowicz
>> <ezmobius / gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>  
>>>         Engine Yard is willing to step up as the official maintainer of
>>> ruby1.8.6. We can provide the right amount of human resources as well as
>>> server and QA resources with automated CI running the rubyspecs.
>>>
>>>        I feel that it is very important to keep a stable ruby 1.8.6
>>> lineage
>>> for some time to come.
>>>
>>>        Matz has stated that he is willing to pass the torch on
>>> maintenance
>>> of ruby1.8.6 and we would like to step up to the plate for the whole
>>> ruby
>>> community. Please respond here if you think Engine yard would make good
>>> maintainers of the ruby1.8.6 lineage
>>>
>>>
>>>     
>> +1
>>
>> Although, I'm at a loss as to what you'd use for the version number on
>> the
>> first maintenance release.
>>
>>
>>   
> What about 1.8.6.1?
> 
Someone suggested having 1.8.8 being 1.8.6 syntax and semantics with
only bug fixes, security fixes and efficiency enhancements. That appeals
to me ... that way, "1.8.7" is a development release and "1.8.8" is
stable. But I would think EngineYard would want to "brand" their ruby
1.8.6 implementation in a manner similar to Ruby Enterprise Edition.

BTW, Perl had no trouble going from 5.8.x to 5.10.x, and I understand
there is a 5.12.x coming. So I don't see a problem with Ruby doing
similar things in the third digit. 1.8.10 works for me, as does 1.9.10. :)

-- 
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

I've never met a happy clam. In fact, most of them were pretty steamed.