Joshua Timberman escreveu isso aí: > Ohai! > > On Oct 3, 2011, at 4:27 AM, Alex Young wrote: > > >> I agree with making 1.9 the default, since that's what everyone who > >> works with Ruby today expects. On the other hand, I think it's premature > >> to drop 1.8 since it is still heavily used and there is a lot of code > >> out there that does not support 1.9. For example, look at this report > >> from New Relic: > >> > >> http://blog.newrelic.com/2011/09/28/state-of-the-stack-a-ruby-on-rails-benchmarking-report-sept-2011/ > > > > That's a circular argument: those applications are almost certainly > > running on 1.8 because that's the distro-supplied ruby version (or was > > when the app was born), not because they've explicitly chosen it in > > preference to 1.9. > > This is exactly correct. > > Major/popular Ruby projects and frameworks are dropping support for > 1.8 entirely. While not indicative of every project and library out > there, this sets a trend and others will follow. Those that don't will > be replaced with 1.9 compatible libraries, or forked and updated > separately. That makes sense. It would ne nice to have concrete evidence about that, though. Any ideas? The problem I see with dropping 1.8 for Wheezy is that the list of reverse dependencies for ruby1.8 is quite big, and we would need to check/patch every one of those packages. I am afraid that's too much effort for our current work capacity, specially because at the same time we have to migrate a lot of packages to the new infrastructure. (note that I am not arguing against making 1.9 the default - IMO that's definitely what we should do) -- Antonio Terceiro <terceiro@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature