Re: Status of ruby1.9 transition (plans)
On 07/01/08 at 03:52 +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> On 07/01/2008, Luiz Vitor Martinez Cardoso wrote:
> > Ruby 1.9 is not a production release. This only pretend to cover new
> > things, and test them for the upcoming Ruby 2.0 version! This will
> > ever be a non-production release.
> >
> > Such as GNOME, the impar (2.17, 2.19...) versions aren`t packaged
> > because are DEVELOPMENT VERSIONS.
> >
> > Why pack it?
>
> Well, reading [1], in particular [2]:
> ,---
> | Ruby 1.9.1 is supposed to be released in december 2007, and will be
> | ruby's stable release.
> `---
>
> 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2007/10/threads.html
> 2. http://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2007/10/msg00009.html
>
> Whether it is a stable, production, or development release is not up to
> me, just asking about the timeframe of such a 1.9(.x) package to be able
> to deal with my packages as smoothly as possible.
See http://lists.debian.org/debian-ruby/2007/10/msg00021.html :
------------------
In message "Re: Clarification of Ruby release plans? 1.8.7? 1.9.1? 2.0?"
on Sat, 20 Oct 2007 00:04:36 +0900, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> writes:
|Do we already know if we will have an 1.8.7 release, a snapshot of the
|1.9 tree, or even a stable release (2.0?) of the 1.9 development tree?
|
|In 2008, what will be the "official" ruby release?
|Or is all of this kept secret until christmas? ;)
In the first half of 2008, the stable release will be 1.8. And it
will be supported for years even after 1.9 become "stable".
|I'm asking because Debian is planning to release its next stable release
|in september 2008, and it would be great to know on what we should focus
|our efforts (in the case of 2.0 stable release by then).
My guess is that it's under transition process in September 2008, so
I'd suggest having packages for both (as in sid, which I currently
use), prioritizing 1.8.
------------------
So it's safe to start working on ruby1.9 support. But this should be done with
upstreams (or better, by upstreams ;)
I don't think that we should make ruby1.9 the default ruby version for lenny, though.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Reply to: