# 1.9 **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [September 15, 2008, 4:36am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9/148566 "2008-09-15T04:36:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rgreen)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 4:36am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9/148566/1 "2008-09-15T04:36:58Z")
Does anyone have any idea when 1.9 will be ready for production release? ---
**Author:** ![rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rgreen)\ **Post date:** [September 15, 2008, 5:09am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9/148566/2 "2008-09-15T05:09:07Z")
On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Rong wrote: > Does anyone have any idea when 1.9 will be ready for production > release? It is expected to release a few days before Christmas. James Edward G. II ---
**Author:** ![rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rgreen)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 6:00am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9/148566/3 "2008-09-16T06:00:22Z")
On Sunday 14 September 2008 22:00:24 James G. wrote: > On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Rong wrote: > > > Does anyone have any idea when 1.9 will be ready for production > > release? > > It is expected to release a few days before Christmas. Has anyone said which Christmas? Besides which, I imagine that 1.9 will be “ready for production” when it’s called 2.0 instead. ---
**Author:** ![rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rgreen)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 6:06am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9/148566/4 "2008-09-16T06:06:13Z")
On Sunday 14 September 2008 22:00:24 James G. wrote: > On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Rong wrote: > > > Does anyone have any idea when 1.9 will be ready for production > > release? > > It is expected to release a few days before Christmas. Did anyone say which Christmas? I imagine it won’t be, at least, not when it’s still called 1.9 – isn’t the “production” release going to be 2.0? For what it’s worth, it seems reasonably stable to me. Most of the problems I’ve had with it have been some library which was broken by backwards-incompatible changes – not an actual 1.9 bug. (At least, not an implementation bug. There’s still a fairly serious design bug in the form of autoload.) (Apologies if this is a duplicate message. My mailer decided to implode just as it was sending.) ---
**Author:** ![rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rgreen)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 2:45pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9/148566/5 "2008-09-16T14:45:40Z")
On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:58 PM, David M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I imagine it won’t be, at least, not when it’s still called 1.9 – isn’t > the “production” release going to be 2.0? No, Matz announced about a year ago that instead of even minor version numbers indicating production vs. experimental/development, a teeny version number \> 0 would be the new indication, So 1.9.1 will be production. Seems he is afraid of running out of digits. – Rick DeNatale My blog on Ruby [http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/) ---
**Author:** ![rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rgreen)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 4:34pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9/148566/6 "2008-09-16T16:34:41Z")
On Sep 15, 2008, at 10:51 PM, David M. wrote: > On Sunday 14 September 2008 22:00:24 James G. wrote: > > > On Sep 14, 2008, at 9:24 PM, Rong wrote: > > > > > Does anyone have any idea when 1.9 will be ready for production > > > release? > > > > It is expected to release a few days before Christmas. > > Has anyone said which Christmas? Yes. Matz. At the Lone Star Rubyconf. This Christmas. > Besides which, I imagine that 1.9 will be “ready for production” > when it’s called 2.0 instead. The production release will be 1.9.1. James Edward G. II ---
**Author:** ![rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rgreen)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 4:42pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9/148566/7 "2008-09-16T16:42:20Z")
On Sep 16, 2008, at 8:21 AM, Gregory B. wrote: > Matz hates the idea of something like 1.8.10, though I don’t exactly > remember the story about it. I think it has to do with comparison > of version numbers as strings, or something else. That’s right: > > “1.8.9” \< “1.8.10” > > =\> false James Edward G. II ---
**Author:** ![rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rgreen)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 8:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9/148566/8 "2008-09-16T20:43:20Z")
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 11:30:10PM +0900, James G. wrote: > On Sep 16, 2008, at 8:21 AM, Gregory B. wrote: > > > Matz hates the idea of something like 1.8.10, though I don’t exactly > > remember the story about it. I think it has to do with comparison > > of version numbers as strings, or something else. > > That’s right: > > > > “1.8.9” \< “1.8.10” > > > =\> false Well, thank goodness I’m not the only person who has noticed this. I’m not entirely convinced this is the best solution, but . . . whatever. I’m more interested in the software than the version numbering system, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@rgreen](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/rgreen)\ **Post date:** [September 16, 2008, 3:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/1-9/148566/9 "2008-09-16T15:30:23Z")
On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:37 AM, Rick DeNatale [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 11:58 PM, David M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > No, Matz announced about a year ago that instead of even minor version > numbers indicating production vs. experimental/development, a teeny version > number \> 0 would be the new indication, So 1.9.1 will be production. > > Seems he is afraid of running out of digits. Mostly unrelated, but it actually may be so. Matz hates the idea of something like 1.8.10, though I don’t exactly remember the story about it. I think it has to do with comparison of version numbers as strings, or something else. Maybe someone here knows the back story. -greg