On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:23:27AM -0700, Stanislav Sedov wrote:
>
>
> At the time we switched to ruby 1.9 there were some ports broken with 2.0
> iirc. I'm not sure if the situation changed with the recent wave of 1.8 ports
> deprecation, though.
>
> I agree that we should go with 2.0. Given
On Oct 23, 2013, at 4:19 AM, "Akinori MUSHA" wrote:
> Great! It's fantastic to see ruby 1.8 finally go.
>
> Now, why don't we make Ruby 2.0 the default version instead of 1.9?
>
> Ruby 2.0 is highly (upper) compatible with 1.9 and there should be no
> reason to adopt Ruby 1.9.3 by now. Ruby 1
Yeap, great idea.
OS X 10.9 ships with ruby 2.0 as the system version already!
http://i.imgur.com/RHBRnmD.png
On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 20:19 +0900, Akinori MUSHA wrote:
> Great! It's fantastic to see ruby 1.8 finally go.
>
> Now, why don't we make Ruby 2.0 the default version instead of 1.9?
>
>
Great! It's fantastic to see ruby 1.8 finally go.
Now, why don't we make Ruby 2.0 the default version instead of 1.9?
Ruby 2.0 is highly (upper) compatible with 1.9 and there should be no
reason to adopt Ruby 1.9.3 by now. Ruby 1.9 is unlikely to have any
more build/platform related change that
On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 01:39:06PM -0400, Thomas Abthorpe wrote:
> Good afternoon list!
>
> I set out this morning to do a big rmport on the ruby* ports that were
> marked as DECPREACTED[1], and started going down deeper and deeper into the
> proverbial rabbit hole.
>
> Ruby 1.8.7 is no longer of
Good afternoon list!
I set out this morning to do a big rmport on the ruby* ports that were
marked as DECPREACTED[1], and started going down deeper and deeper into the
proverbial rabbit hole.
Ruby 1.8.7 is no longer officially supported upstream as of the end of
June, 2013[2]
I would like to see
