Forum: JRuby When is JRuby 1.2/1.1.7 release?

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
Vivek P. (Guest)
on 2009-01-27 19:09
(Received via mailing list)
Hi everyone,

Post JRuby 1.1.6 has some important performance related fixes and it
will be
good to know when is the release of jruby 1.2 or 1.1.7 is planned.
Considering one of the goal of jruby 1.2 is jruby 1.9 support. I am
wondering if jruby 1.1.7 can be released soon and 1.2 release follows it
whenever jruby 1.9 or some other functionality is ready.

Thoughts?

-vivek.
Chuck R. (Guest)
on 2009-01-27 19:12
(Received via mailing list)
According to what I've seen on irc, the 1.1.7 release is being renamed
to 1.2 and is targeted for the end of February. The jruby trunk has a
lot of 1.9 improvements so I would recommend checking out the latest
trunk and building a copy for your own local testing. If you notice
areas that require additional attention for full 1.9 support, add them
as issues to the jruby issue tracker.

cr

On Jan 27, 2009, at 11:09 AM, Vivek P. wrote:

>
> -vivek.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
Charles Oliver N. (Guest)
on 2009-01-27 19:15
(Received via mailing list)
Vivek P. wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> Post JRuby 1.1.6 has some important performance related fixes and it
> will be good to know when is the release of jruby 1.2 or 1.1.7 is
> planned. Considering one of the goal of jruby 1.2 is jruby 1.9 support.
> I am wondering if jruby 1.1.7 can be released soon and 1.2 release
> follows it whenever jruby 1.9 or some other functionality is ready.

As it stands right now there is no 1.1.7; 1.2 is "it". But we should
probably try to figure out what we want to have "done" for 1.2 and what
level of "done" it should be at. 1.9 support was a big bite, but I think
we're getting pretty close.

* Marcin: what's your status on the 1.9 API work you've been doing? How
much longer do you think it will take? Where do you need help?
* Tom: What remaining 1.9 parser changes do you think we need in 1.2?
For example, do we need to get the encoding pragma stuff in before
release?
* Others: Are there specific bugs you're hoping to see in 1.2? Do you
have time to help on bugs?

For me I hope to get remaining 1.9 compiler work done. I think stabby
lambda is in pretty good shape, but I need a bit more work on
method/block arguments and multiple assignment. I also need to pull in
1.9 tests/specs so we know how close we're getting.

- Charlie

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
Thomas E Enebo (Guest)
on 2009-01-27 20:32
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Charles Oliver N.
<removed_email_address@domain.invalid> wrote:
> As it stands right now there is no 1.1.7; 1.2 is "it". But we should
> probably try to figure out what we want to have "done" for 1.2 and what
> level of "done" it should be at. 1.9 support was a big bite, but I think
> we're getting pretty close.
>
> * Marcin: what's your status on the 1.9 API work you've been doing? How much
> longer do you think it will take? Where do you need help?
> * Tom: What remaining 1.9 parser changes do you think we need in 1.2? For
> example, do we need to get the encoding pragma stuff in before release?

Additional list of things for 1.2 (not just 1.9 stuff):
- M17n is not hooked up in parser at all (not sure how much this will
involve Marcin)
  - I am not sure if this is so important or not (Unless there is a
strong outcry for this then this is lower priority to me than
improving Rails perf for 1.2).  Without it we will be 1.9 with the
limitation of reading source code/strings like 1.8 does.  Except for
people with multibyte strings (literals), I am not sure anyone would
notice.  Reading 1.9 data using File/String libs will work as expected
in 1.9 if Marcin is far enough along.
  - If people really want this then I may consider it as my JRuby
retreat project...
- No 1.9 standard library imported yet [JRUBY-3314]
- Make sure we are passing a majority of rubyspec run (or at least
know what we are not going support by running against rubyspec).
- Windows has not been able to run Rails since 1.1.4/5.  We need to
add a windows flag or at least correct the drive-letter issue people
are having (submitted patch is not right since it modifies
standard-library in one place...this is more invasive) [JRUBY-1401].
- Conclusion to leak issues we have been trying to figure out with GF.

> * Others: Are there specific bugs you're hoping to see in 1.2? Do you have
> time to help on bugs?
>
> For me I hope to get remaining 1.9 compiler work done. I think stabby lambda
> is in pretty good shape, but I need a bit more work on method/block
> arguments and multiple assignment. I also need to pull in 1.9 tests/specs so
> we know how close we're getting.
>
> - Charlie




--
Blog: http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ThomasEEnebo
Email: removed_email_address@domain.invalid , 
removed_email_address@domain.invalid

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
Charles Oliver N. (Guest)
on 2009-01-27 21:18
(Received via mailing list)
Charles Oliver N. wrote:
> * Marcin: what's your status on the 1.9 API work you've been doing? How
> much longer do you think it will take? Where do you need help?

Talked to Marcin on IRC...basically he could use help with the IO side
of things, handling encodings properly on strings going in and coming
out, and encoding-aware logic like gets.

- Charlie

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:

    http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.