ruby 1.8.5, released Apr 2006 ruby 1.8.7, released May 2008 ruby 1.9.2, released Oct 2010
Not exactly bleeding edge though I suppose anything released in the last four years could be considered that when compared to RHEL 5. :-) FWIW, if you think of the releases as Ruby 1.0.x, 1.5.x, and 2.0.x respectively the differences in capabilities will make more sense. Ramin On Aug 27, 4:36 am, Tim Connors <tim.w.conn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Michael Stahnke wrote: > > * Dashboard now requires Ruby 1.8.7 to operate > > I've always found it odd that sysadmins would opt for such an unstable > language. One where minor revisions are often backwards incompatible > changes to the language. The ruby design seems to this particular > sysadmin, to be contraindicative of something that can be well > sysadminned. So it seems odd that it's the backbone of such an important > sysadmin tool. > > All distributions have a reasonable method of including a good selection > of perl modules. And perl is pretty stable over time. But this choice of > not debugging the problems with ruby 1.8.5 leads to it being impossible to > host dashboard on redhat 5 entirely. > > I don't have the freedom of not chosing rhel at work. If I provisioned a > new rhel6 server for the new puppet infrastructure, then I'd just be > pushing back the problem until next year when dashboard decided to come > out with ruby dependencies of > 1.8.7. > > Is there a great need for choosing bleeding edge features of an unstable > language for a sysadmin tool that's meant to be around for a long time > because of the amount of investment required in setting it up? > > </rant, part question> > > -- > Tim Connors -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Users" group. To post to this group, send email to puppet-users@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to puppet-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-users?hl=en.
