# 1.9 Backport? **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [October 26, 2006, 2:35pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-backport/73705 "2006-10-26T14:35:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2006, 2:35pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-backport/73705/1 "2006-10-26T14:35:53Z")
Reading: [RubyConf 2006 Recap](http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2006/10/26/rubyconf-2006-recap/) If Ruby 1.9+ won’t be released for over a year, can we backport a few features? Most noteabley #instance\_exec and the ability of a block to take a &block argument --the lack of these exact a heavy toll on good clean metacode. Also, is it true RCRchive is to be no more? Thanks, T. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2006, 3:03pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-backport/73705/2 "2006-10-26T15:03:56Z")
On 10/26/06, Trans [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Reading: > [RubyConf 2006 Recap](http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2006/10/26/rubyconf-2006-recap/) > If Ruby 1.9+ won’t be released for over a year, can we backport a few > features? Most noteabley #instance\_exec and the ability of a block to > take a &block argument --the lack of these exact a heavy toll on good > clean metacode. Probably not. Ruby 1.8 is supposed to be _stable_, and I doubt that there’ll be a shim like there was for Ruby 1.6 to 1.8, either. > Also, is it true RCRchive is to be no more? No. Take a look at my blog; RCRchive is going to change focus into probably being a starting point for discussion, but _how_ such entries are processed will probably change from the current software to something else that allows for mailing-list discussions. -austin ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2006, 4:24pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-backport/73705/3 "2006-10-26T16:24:05Z")
On 10/26/06, Trans [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Right. I realize. I was just hoping that a few significant features > that are pure “superset” could make it back. I sympathize, but I read something about the Denver Summit (posted on RedHanded by Daigo) indicating that absolutely no new features will be added to Ruby 1.8. Just bug fixes. -austin ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2006, 4:12pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-backport/73705/4 "2006-10-26T16:12:05Z")
Austin Z. wrote: > On 10/26/06, Trans [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > Reading: > > [RubyConf 2006 Recap](http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2006/10/26/rubyconf-2006-recap/) > > If Ruby 1.9+ won’t be released for over a year, can we backport a few > > features? Most noteabley #instance\_exec and the ability of a block to > > take a &block argument --the lack of these exact a heavy toll on good > > clean metacode. > > Probably not. Ruby 1.8 is supposed to be _stable_, and I doubt that > there’ll be a shim like there was for Ruby 1.6 to 1.8, either. Right. I realize. I was just hoping that a few significant features that are pure “superset” could make it back. T. ---
**Author:** ![Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/dfb087/32.png) [@Trans](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Trans)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2006, 4:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9-backport/73705/5 "2006-10-26T16:38:06Z")
> I sympathize, but I read something about the Denver Summit (posted on > RedHanded by Daigo) indicating that absolutely no new features will be > added to Ruby 1.8. Just bug fixes. In the roundtable there was a specific question about backporting some functionality. I don’t recall the functionality that was being discussed, but I clearly remember Matz indicating that he would be willing to backport functionality if it had no impact on the current code. The specific item being discussed wouldn’t have, and he said he would be open to looking at it. Michael