Windham, Kristopher R.
12/26/2007 10:39:00 PM
in the Desktop reference by Matz, printed in 2002,
he says ..
"Developmental releases of Ruby always have an odd minor revision =20
number such as 1.5 or 1.7.
Once a developmental release is stable and finalized, it's then =20
"promoted" to a stable release. Stable releases always have an even =20
minor revision number such as 2.0 or3.2. Therefore, releases with =20
even subversion numbers are stable releases. Releases with odd =20
subversion numbers are developmental versions..."
I assume this is still the case.
Do not ever use a developmental release for production.
As far as intentions for 1.9.x, I will leave that answer to some one =20
else.
On Dec 26, 2007, at 4:17 PM, Luiz Vitor Martinez Cardoso wrote:
> You are asking very usefull questions! Well... we need wait to someone
> answer ;)
> Regards,
> Luiz Vitor.
>
> On Dec 26, 2007 6:50 PM, Rados=C5=82aw Bu=C5=82at =
<radek.bulat@gmail.com> =20
> wrote:
>
>> First of all I want to thank Matz and Ko1 for yours great work! I
>> can't say how much thankful I am for Ruby language.
>>
>> My question is generally to Matz, Ko1 or other Ruby core maintainers.
>> We have Ruby 1.9 already released. Matz says that it's not stable as
>> he expected, so it requires some work to become stable. But what
>> intentions are for Ruby 1.9.x? Is it released mainly for developers
>> and programmers which are very close to language (language, gem
>> maintainers) or it's regular release for production usage? Does Ruby
>> follow unix style for labeling versions? (1.8 stable, 1.9 =20
>> development,
>> 2.0 stable etc) I've read dissenting opinions of it.
>>
>>
>
>
> --=20
> Regards,
> Luiz Vitor Martinez Cardoso [Grabber].
> (11) 8187-8662
>
> rubz.org - engineer student at maua.br