On Feb 13, 11:11    
> Hi Matz, I'm glad to see that you've entered this fray.
>
> I trust that you know me well enough to know, that while I have strong
> opinions, I have no ill-will, particularly to you or your language.
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:10 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <m... / ruby-lang.org>wrote:
>
> > Hi,
>
> >  Rails had problem from method name conflict.  > >       > >           
>
> >  erb also had a bug in 1.8.7 initial release.   
>
> >  two other problems are reported (SWIG and hash order), and as far
> >      > > .8.6 by accident.
>
> > I consider them minor and not being worse than previous releases.
> > Most of them are addressed already.  
>
> First, the next         
> which doesn't   >
> I know that Rails isn't liked by everyone in the Ruby community, but for
> better or worse, it's an important factor to the health of a significant
> portion of 'our' community.    
> frameworks over time haven't experienced how we got to the point where these
> problems have been addressed.
>
> At this point, it's a little hard to recover the history, but, although
> Rails 2.2 is now compatible with Ruby 1.8.7 it has taken work, and new
> releases, from both the Ruby team and the Rails team.

Well, it's frustrating for me. My ISP just sent word:

  We will be upgrading your server to the following versions of Ruby
and Rails on Wednesday, February 18, 2009.

  Ruby 1.8.7
  Rails 2.2.2

  This upgrade is needed to bring Ruby and Rails to the current stable
releases.

I'm wondering what it's going to take to get to 1.9. That's were I
want to go. But now I have to horse around in 1.8 and 1.8.7 for who
knows how long.

The switch from 1.6 to 1.8 went much more smoothly. If Rails were
around back then, I wonder if we would still be deal with 1.6.9 today?

I think 1.8.7 was a mistake. It has taken us too long to get to 1.9
and now we are being forced to deal with a unwanted stop-gap measure,
holding it all up yet again.

T.