MySQL gem 2.8.1 supports Ruby 1.9.
On Sep 10, 4:40 am, "Ryan Bigg (Radar)"
wrote:
> Has anyone tried installing the mysql gem from Rubyforge on 1.9? It's stuff
> like that that makes people hesitant to switch to 1.9. Projects on Rubyforge
> who's owners have long abandoned it. There needs to be
Perhaps this could be changed in 1.8.6 itself. Issue a warning if the
tag contains a comment.
In 1.8.7, raise an error.
jeremy
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Will Bryant wrote:
>
> I'm not arguing that we stick with 1.8.6 for Rails 3.0, I'm pointing
> out that there's an upgrade issue that p
I'm not arguing that we stick with 1.8.6 for Rails 3.0, I'm pointing
out that there's an upgrade issue that people need to be aware of,
which is what Yehuda was asking for. Kindly re-read my post.
But since you mention it, I can expect them to at least give an error,
rather than silently losing
Hear, hear!
jeremy
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Adam Milligan
wrote:
>
> This comment example is invalid ERB, and is relatively clearly
> documented as such. You can't reasonably expect language providers to
> support behavior that they've explicitly declared as invalid, and you
> can't re
This comment example is invalid ERB, and is relatively clearly
documented as such. You can't reasonably expect language providers to
support behavior that they've explicitly declared as invalid, and you
can't reasonably expect framework providers to stick with a language
version because you've ch
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
> Finally, Ruby 1.8.7 does not appear to provide backward-compatibility
> issues. For instance, WePlay, which has a significant, complex app, had a
> lot of trouble porting their app to Ruby 1.9, but basically zero problems
> with Ruby 1.8.7. The
Has anyone tried installing the mysql gem from Rubyforge on 1.9? It's stuff
like that that makes people hesitant to switch to 1.9. Projects on Rubyforge
who's owners have long abandoned it. There needs to be a way for other
people to patch gems and submit them and have a team of dedicated people to
> Come on guys, these are all open source projects. If something isn't
> working on a newer version, how much work would it be to get it to
> work?
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic here, but I'll bite. It's very
often quite a bit of work. It's even more work to then maintain 1.8.6
and
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 5:54 PM, Jeremy Evans wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Joris Verschoor wrote:
>>
>> I think if we don't go to ruby 1.9, ruby and rails will get stuck in a
>> similar thing that happened with java 1.2 1.4 and 1.5.
>
> Certainly, supporting the latest version of rub
On Sep 9, 2009, at 2:54 PM, Jeremy Evans wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Joris Verschoor
> wrote:
>>
>> I think if we don't go to ruby 1.9, ruby and rails will get stuck
>> in a
>> similar thing that happened with java 1.2 1.4 and 1.5.
>
> Certainly, supporting the latest version of
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Joris Verschoor wrote:
>
> I think if we don't go to ruby 1.9, ruby and rails will get stuck in a
> similar thing that happened with java 1.2 1.4 and 1.5.
Certainly, supporting the latest version of ruby is a good thing.
However, forcing people to upgrade their ru
I think if we don't go to ruby 1.9, ruby and rails will get stuck in a
similar thing that happened with java 1.2 1.4 and 1.5.
Come on guys, these are all open source projects. If something isn't
working on a newer version, how much work would it be to get it to
work?
just my 2cents
On Wed, Sep
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Jeremy Evans wrote:
>
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>> Hey Jeremy,
>> I apologize for the delay.
>> The basic idea is that there are a number of issues in Ruby 1.8.6 that are
>> simply not going to be fixed
> First, thank you very much for
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:17 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
> Hey Jeremy,
> I apologize for the delay.
> The basic idea is that there are a number of issues in Ruby 1.8.6 that are
> simply not going to be fixed
> (see http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/tags/v1_8_7/ChangeLog for a
> complete list), and t
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Luca Guidi wrote:
> You can safely use Passenger with Ruby 1.9.1, avoiding REE.
I wasn't asking whether you can use Passenger with 1.9.1. I'm talking
the about these REE announcements on the passenger (sorry, 'Phusion')
website:
http://blog.phusion.nl/2009/05/27/r
You can safely use Passenger with Ruby 1.9.1, avoiding REE.
- Luca
--
lucaguidi.com
twitter.com/jodosha
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby
on Rails: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Chad Pytel wrote:
>> The present (not the future) of Ruby it's 1.9.1, honestly don't know
>> why the majority (myself included) is still on the old-and-beloved
>> 1.8.6.
>
> Our primary reason is because none of the main hosting services
> support 1.9. EngineYard,
> The present (not the future) of Ruby it's 1.9.1, honestly don't know
> why the majority (myself included) is still on the old-and-beloved
> 1.8.6.
Our primary reason is because none of the main hosting services
support 1.9. EngineYard, Rails Machine, etc. all are still on 1.8.6.
We ar
The EY team will maintain 1.8.x branch only for security issues, I don't
think they will backport all the 1.9.x features. Because it's a non-sense.
The present (not the future) of Ruby it's 1.9.1, honestly don't know why the
majority (myself included) is still on the old-and-beloved 1.8.6.
The "Bi
Hey Jeremy,
I apologize for the delay.
The basic idea is that there are a number of issues in Ruby 1.8.6 that are
simply not going to be fixed (see
http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/tags/v1_8_7/ChangeLog for a complete
list), and targeting 1.8.6 means always having to make sure that new
features
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 6:58 PM, Michael Koziarski wrote:
>
>> Assuming the community provides patches that allow Rails to continue
>> working on 1.8.6, would the core team consider supporting 1.8.6?
>>
>> To put it another way, if there aren't hard technical problems in
>> supporting 1.8.6, why fo
> Assuming the community provides patches that allow Rails to continue
> working on 1.8.6, would the core team consider supporting 1.8.6?
>
> To put it another way, if there aren't hard technical problems in
> supporting 1.8.6, why force 1.8.7 down the community's collective
> throat?
My understa
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Michael Koziarski wrote:
>
> I believe this was discussed in passing in the CI thread? Something
> along the lines of Hash#hash in 1.8.6 being a problem for us.
>
> On another level though, 1.9 is the future of ruby, and 1.8.7 is
> expressly intended to be the 1.8.x
I believe this was discussed in passing in the CI thread? Something
along the lines of Hash#hash in 1.8.6 being a problem for us.
On another level though, 1.9 is the future of ruby, and 1.8.7 is
expressly intended to be the 1.8.x which makes it easier to handle the
migration. So preferring 1.9 a
24 matches
Mail list logo
