ANN: Ruby 1.8.6 pl399 released

Ruby 1.8.6 pl399 has been released. This release fixes a problem that
was encountered yesterday with builds on some platforms. The only
difference between pl399 and pl398 is that pl399 required a minor
syntax change in one macro, and purged some dead code left behind by
earlier changes.

It can be found here:

ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/ruby-1.8.6-p399.tar.bz2
ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/ruby-1.8.6-p399.tar.gz
ftp://ftp.ruby-lang.org/pub/ruby/ruby-1.8.6-p399.tar.zip

MD5(ruby-1.8.6-p399.tar.bz2)= f77c307cb72fb8808b0e85af5d05cefc
SHA256(ruby-1.8.6-p399.tar.bz2)=
20ca08aeefa21ca2581a9791f8f9ace3addc92bd978cf36f2f95c109085a50a7
SIZE(ruby-1.8.6-p399.tar.bz2)= 3972399

MD5(ruby-1.8.6-p399.tar.gz)= c3d16cdd3c1ee8f3b7d1c399d4884e33
SHA256(ruby-1.8.6-p399.tar.gz)=
04efd2a260116c2f4efdb9f2408da086c33ac81146bb030c50a1378951a581e3
SIZE(ruby-1.8.6-p399.tar.gz)= 4580988

MD5(ruby-1.8.6-p399.zip)= 75c4e8926586475962fcacee1a2fc947
SHA256(ruby-1.8.6-p399.zip)=
6db16f10fdb87fdba73ca0260875a6092b83549ec772b23685dbe6adcc58fd50
SIZE(ruby-1.8.6-p399.zip)= 5627074

As always, if you encounter any unexpected behavior, please contact me.

Kirk H.
[email protected]

Awesome turnaround time Kirk!

For anyone using rvm, the latest git head (rvm update --head) now has
p399
as default for 1.8.6. It will be default for release 0.1.8.

~Wayne

Kirk H. [email protected] writes:

Ruby 1.8.6 pl399 has been released. This release fixes a problem that
was encountered yesterday with builds on some platforms. The only
difference between pl399 and pl398 is that pl399 required a minor
syntax change in one macro, and purged some dead code left behind by
earlier changes.

Forgive my ignorance, but why would one want to use this instead of
1.8.7? Is 1.8.7 closer to the bleeding edge than I believed it was, or
is the 1.8.6 line maintained purely for existing applications that
really really don’t need any API changes?

I’m sure there’s a perfectly sensible reason for apparently having three
MRI versions (1,8.6, 1.8.7, 1.9.x) on the go at once, but I don’t know
what that reason is or where the boundaries are.

-dan

Dan,

Many people have production applications running on 1.8.6 and upgrades
would
happen at a cost that the company might not want to foot just yet.

Kirk maintains the 1.8.6 branch for such people back porting security
patches, bug fixes and enhancements from 1.8.7 so that such people can
still
get the benefits & stability.

The upgrade path for some companies is excruciatingly slow :slight_smile:

IMHO if you are new to ruby you should be using 1.9.X and don’t look
back.

~Wayne

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 10:15 AM, [email protected] wrote:

Kirk H. <[email protected]

Forgive my ignorance, but why would one want to use this instead of
1.8.7? Is 1.8.7 closer to the bleeding edge than I believed it was, or
is the 1.8.6 line maintained purely for existing applications that
really really don’t need any API changes?

I’m sure there’s a perfectly sensible reason for apparently having three
MRI versions (1,8.6, 1.8.7, 1.9.x) on the go at once, but I don’t know
what that reason is or where the boundaries are.

Dan, Wayne basically covered it. It’s support. Where one has an
option, one should at least be using Ruby 1.8.7, and should probably
be evaluating 1.9.1 as well as other implementations such a Rubinius
or JRuby. But a lot of people are still on 1.8.6, maybe because they
are comfortable with it. Maybe because that’s what their app uses and
changing it isn’t as easy for them as just swapping, or maybe for
other reasons.

So, for the foreseeable future I’ll continue backporting important
changes and bug fixes into 1.8.6, probably at a more aggressive pace
than in prior months, until I run out of issues to fix.

Kirk H.

Ruby 1.8.6 pl399 has been released. This release fixes a problem that
was encountered yesterday with builds on some platforms. The only
difference between pl399 and pl398 is that pl399 required a minor
syntax change in one macro, and purged some dead code left behind by
earlier changes.

Any chance you could email James G. with the news so he can post a
blog about the update to http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/
?
Thanks.
-r

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs