# ANN: Ruby 1.8.6 pl399 released **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [February 5, 2010, 4:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ruby-1-8-6-pl399-released/182983 "2010-02-05T16:13:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![kirkhoward](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kirkhoward](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/kirkhoward)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2010, 4:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ruby-1-8-6-pl399-released/182983/1 "2010-02-05T16:13:48Z")
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. removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid ---
**Author:** ![kirkhoward](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kirkhoward](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/kirkhoward)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2010, 5:02pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ruby-1-8-6-pl399-released/182983/2 "2010-02-05T17:02:22Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![kirkhoward](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kirkhoward](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/kirkhoward)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2010, 6:24pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ruby-1-8-6-pl399-released/182983/3 "2010-02-05T18:24:54Z")
Kirk H. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) 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 ---
**Author:** ![kirkhoward](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kirkhoward](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/kirkhoward)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2010, 6:40pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ruby-1-8-6-pl399-released/182983/4 "2010-02-05T18:40:08Z")
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 🙂 IMHO if you are new to ruby you should be using 1.9.X and don’t look back. ~Wayne ---
**Author:** ![kirkhoward](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kirkhoward](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/kirkhoward)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ruby-1-8-6-pl399-released/182983/5 "2010-02-19T21:38:11Z")
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 10:15 AM, [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Kirk H. \ 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. ---
**Author:** ![kirkhoward](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/k/13edae/32.png) [@kirkhoward](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/kirkhoward)\ **Post date:** [February 19, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/ann-ruby-1-8-6-pl399-released/182983/6 "2010-02-19T20:43:36Z")
> 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 [Ruby Programming Language](http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/) ? Thanks. -r