# If you are unhappy with the direction of Ruby 1.8.7+, respond

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [February 11, 2009, 6:12pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090 "2009-02-11T18:12:33Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 11:31am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/61 "2009-02-12T11:31:22Z")

</div>

In article [Y2Ekl.10025$removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid2](mailto:Y2Ekl.10025$removed_email_address@domain.invalid2),  
Alex F. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> last night, and in particular Akinori MUSHA’s statement:
> 
> “Yes. Backporting syntactic changes is a big part of the plan for ruby  
> 1.8.8”

It boggles the mind to read that. I have an enormous respect for you  
Akinori-san for both your FreeBSD and Ruby work but that’s poppycock.

> Luckily I was in bed else I’d have fallen off my chair. This seems to me  
> the most bonkers development plan I’ve seen in a long while.
> 
> Stable releases are meant to be _stable_; minor point releases are meant  
> to be _API compatible_, backwards and forwards. I can’t think of any  
> other serious open-source project that would even contemplate adding  
> random bits of syntax and API calls in minor releases.

+1000

I feel 1.8.7 is the biggest mistake the Ruby developers have made, it  
muddies  
the water about what are 1.8 and 1.9 (as if the problem about 1.9 not  
being  
ruby2 or rite or whatever it is called was not enough!), don’t encourage  
people to move over to 1.9 at all.

I also think this is an software engineering mistake as well. You  
_never_  
introduce API or language changes in a stable branch, ever. Worse, it  
was done  
in a _minor_ revision. What are you guys smokin’?

We don’t need any glibc-like crazyness in Ruby, thanks. It is already  
difficult enough to advocate Ruby over Python already with the almost  
non  
existent Unicode/UTF-8 support (and quirky when something exist)…

I also think m17n is way too complicated in 1.9 but that’s another  
windmill to  
fight for.

> I expressed the same opinion at length and with some fervour regarding  
> the release of 1.8.7: [http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/150251#663291](http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/150251#663291)

So did I, several times.

Sorry for ranting but seeing my favorite language go these ways is  
taking on  
me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 3:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/62 "2009-02-12T15:30:31Z")

</div>

Hi –

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009, Yossef M. wrote:

> > > acceptable to break the existing code in the field which performed  
> > > I don’t know about the discussions relating to this behavior, but I  
> > > find it dismaying that anyone would seriously say that this isn’t  
> > > desired string comparison behavior. I mean, these are _strings_, not  
> > > anything special. They just happen to contain a certain pattern of  
> > > characters.
> 
> Or maybe you meant the bug was that people were comparing strings at  
> all, which is understandable (though a strange word choice).

I think Charlie meant that a version comparison algorithm that didn’t  
understand that “.10” was greater than “.9” was buggy.

David

–  
David A. Black / Ruby Power and Light, LLC  
Ruby/Rails consulting & training: [http://www.rubypal.com](http://www.rubypal.com)  
Coming in 2009: The Well-Grounded Rubyist ([The Well-Grounded Rubyist](http://manning.com/black2))

[http://www.wishsight.com](http://www.wishsight.com) =\> Independent, social wishlist management!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 3:26pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/63 "2009-02-12T15:26:58Z")

</div>

On Feb 12, 4:21 am, Charles Oliver N. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)  
wrote:

> > > > “1.8.9” \> “1.8.8”  
> > > > =\> true
> 
> > > > “1.8.10” \> “1.8.9”  
> > > > =\> false
> 
> I remember the discussions. I stand by my assertion that this is a bug.

I don’t know about the discussions relating to this behavior, but I  
find it dismaying that anyone would seriously say that this isn’t  
desired string comparison behavior. I mean, these are _strings_, not  
anything special. They just happen to contain a certain pattern of  
characters.

Or maybe you meant the bug was that people were comparing strings at  
all, which is understandable (though a strange word choice).

Maybe we should start up the Perl v-string[1] debates in the Ruby  
community. Actually, if Ruby core (or stdlib) had v-strings, that  
would be a part of rubygems that could by set free from its cold, dark  
p4 prison.

[1]: For a good time:

> **[Data::VString - Perl extension to handle v-strings (often used as version...](https://metacpan.org/release/FERREIRA/Data-VString-0.000004/view/lib/Data/VString.pm)**
>
> Perl extension to handle v-strings (often used as version strings)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 4:23pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/64 "2009-02-12T16:23:37Z")

</div>

2009/2/11 James G. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid):

> Object.new.tap { |o| p o }
> 
> runs on 1.8.7 and not 1.8.6.

1.8.x releases always introduced new methods.  
If Ruby releases were done how the mob here wants  
them, we wouldn’t have a single new method since  
1.8.0 was released in 2003.

Important is backwards compatibility and Ruby 1.8.7  
is backwards compatible. Nobody so far has shown  
where 1.8.7 is not backwards compatible.

That Rails broke was their own fault. They extend core  
classes, so clashes are to be expected. If they had  
tested with an 1.8.7 release candidate, I’m sure they  
could have worked out a solution with the 1.8 maintainers.

Stefan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 4:01pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/65 "2009-02-12T16:01:12Z")

</div>

Le 12 février à 15:25, Yossef M. a écrit :

> I mean, these are _strings_, not anything special. They just happen  
> to contain a certain pattern of characters.

Any Ruby string can become special :

> > RUBY\_VERSION = RUBY\_VERSION.dup  
> > (irb):5: warning: already initialized constant RUBY\_VERSION  
> > =\> “1.8.6”
> 
> > class \<\<RUBY\_VERSION ; def \<=\>(b)  
> > self.split(/./).collect { |x| x.to\_i } \<=\> b.split(/./).collect { |x| x.to\_i }  
> > end ; end  
> > =\> nil
> 
> > RUBY\_VERSION.freeze  
> > =\> “1.8.6”
> 
> > RUBY\_VERSION \< ‘1.8.10’  
> > =\> true

But not ‘1.8.10’ \> RUBY\_VERSION, alas !

🙂

Fred

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 4:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/66 "2009-02-12T16:30:41Z")

</div>

Stefan L. wrote:

> 1.8.x releases always introduced new methods.  
> If Ruby releases were done how the mob here wants  
> them, we wouldn’t have a single new method since  
> 1.8.0 was released in 2003.

What a great way to lead people into your viewpoint!

> Important is backwards compatibility and Ruby 1.8.7  
> is backwards compatible. Nobody so far has shown  
> where 1.8.7 is not backwards compatible.

require ‘rubynode’

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 4:57pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/67 "2009-02-12T16:57:45Z")

</div>

> Important is backwards compatibility and Ruby 1.8.7  
> is backwards compatible. Nobody so far has shown  
> where 1.8.7 is not backwards compatible.

See my earlier demonstration:

git clone git://github.com/jcoglan/packr.git packr  
cd packr  
git co -b 3.1 origin/3.1  
git co 4cc307  
rake multi

No monkey-patching on my part, just existing 1.8.6 behaviour that  
changed in  
1.8.7. I’m all for additions, as long as established behaviour is  
stable.  
Additions should not break existing code if you’re not monkey patching.

@\_why I’m not interested in joining a mob and I’m not going to be mad at  
Matz et al if they disagree with me. Just responding to a question, hope  
none of this appears mob-like.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 4:58pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/68 "2009-02-12T16:58:56Z")

</div>

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, Stefan L. wrote:

> > This is trivial to prove. This code:
> > 
> > Object.new.tap { |o| p o }
> > 
> > runs on 1.8.7 and not 1.8.6.
> 
> 1.8.x releases always introduced new methods.  
> If Ruby releases were done how the mob here wants  
> them, we wouldn’t have a single new method since  
> 1.8.0 was released in 2003.

There’s no mob. I wish people would stop using that word in this  
thread. These are, to a large extent, friends of mine, and friends of  
the core team members, discussing an exceptionally important Ruby  
issue with ardency but with collegiality.

Much, much more has been said about the issues involved in the recent  
version policy than that it’s bad to introduce any new methods in  
teeny versions (and that, as far as I can see, has _not_ been said).

My main problem with it is that, while I understand the idea of 1.8.7  
and 1.8.8 as stepping stones to 1.9.1, I don’t think we need any  
stepping stones. I’ve been learning 1.9 pretty intensely over the past  
year, and I have never felt the need to have a 1.8 version that had  
1.9 features. 1.9 has kept me quite busy.

I also love 1.8.6, and while I think a lot of 1.9 features are great,  
I’ve never felt like I can’t go another day (week, month, whatever)  
without them.

So the whole backporting thing has been a puzzle to me. I think, in  
any case, that there’s no one thing (1.8.7 not running 1.8.6 code;  
1.8.x ceasing to mean what a.b.x has generally meant in the past;  
1.8.\>6 leading to more, rather than less, trepidation about moving to  
1.9; the issues with non-MRI implementations that Charlie and Evan  
have talked about, etc.) responsible for the misgivings. It’s a kind  
of perfect storm of all these things.

I don’t see any long-term way out of it except to focus on the move to  
1.9.1. I don’t mean that as a repudiation of anyone’s work. It’s my  
assessment of where things stand, however they got there.

David

–  
David A. Black / Ruby Power and Light, LLC  
Ruby/Rails consulting & training: [http://www.rubypal.com](http://www.rubypal.com)  
Coming in 2009: The Well-Grounded Rubyist ([The Well-Grounded Rubyist](http://manning.com/black2))

[http://www.wishsight.com](http://www.wishsight.com) =\> Independent, social wishlist management!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 4:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/69 "2009-02-12T16:56:34Z")

</div>

2009/2/12 Phlip [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid):

> > Important is backwards compatibility and Ruby 1.8.7  
> > is backwards compatible. Nobody so far has shown  
> > where 1.8.7 is not backwards compatible.
> 
> require ‘rubynode’

From [http://rubynode.rubyforge.org/:](http://rubynode.rubyforge.org/:)  
“RubyNode is a library that allows read only access to Ruby’s  
internal NODE structure.”

It’s cool that such libraries exist, but AFAIK MRI’s  
internal AST is not part of its public API, much  
less part of Ruby 1.8, the language.

Stefan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:14pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/70 "2009-02-12T17:14:12Z")

</div>

2009/2/12 James C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid):

> git clone git://github.com/jcoglan/packr.git packr  
> cd packr  
> git co -b 3.1 origin/3.1  
> git co 4cc307  
> rake multi
> 
> No monkey-patching on my part, just existing 1.8.6 behaviour that changed in  
> 1.8.7. I’m all for additions, as long as established behaviour is stable.  
> Additions should not break existing code if you’re not monkey patching.

It would be helpful to see exactly what fails.

Stefan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:28pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/71 "2009-02-12T17:28:57Z")

</div>

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, David A. Black wrote:

> Much, much more has been said about the issues involved in the recent  
> version policy than that it’s bad to introduce any new methods in  
> teeny versions (and that, as far as I can see, has _not_ been said).

A followup to this:

I think there are two important points to keep in mind. First, it’s a  
matter of degree, not kind. In other words, no one is saying that  
1.8.7 should be indistinguishable from 1.8.6. It’s more the quantity  
of change that’s at issue. Here’s a very crude metric, showing the  
results of instance\_methods(false) for various classes and modules  
across three 1.8 versions:

1.8.2  
String: 83  
Array: 71  
Hash: 45  
Range: 15  
Enumerable: 22

1.8.6  
String: 83  
Array: 71  
Hash: 45  
Range: 15  
Enumerable: 22

1.8.7  
String: 91  
Array: 83  
Hash: 47  
Range: 15  
Enumerable: 43

(Gotta love Range 🙂

Of course there’s no cut-off point where it ceases to be good, or  
whatever. It’s a matter of judgment.

The second important point is that it’s not so much a matter of 1.8.7  
not running 1.8.6 code, as the degree to which people expect teeny  
versions to behave the way they always have – and that means, in the  
main, developing 1.8.7 code and expecting no more than a few bug-fixes  
and maybe the necessity to shim a couple of methods when running it on  
1.8.6 installations.

I don’t think there’s any question about the fact that 1.8.7 redefined  
the teeny method semantics, and that it all goes back to the 1.10  
issue. And of course the numbering is arbitrary and human-made, and a  
given sequence of digits isn’t inherently better or worse than another  
sequence. It’s about expectations and how the changes, once made, play  
out.

David

–  
David A. Black / Ruby Power and Light, LLC  
Ruby/Rails consulting & training: [http://www.rubypal.com](http://www.rubypal.com)  
Coming in 2009: The Well-Grounded Rubyist ([The Well-Grounded Rubyist](http://manning.com/black2))

[http://www.wishsight.com](http://www.wishsight.com) =\> Independent, social wishlist management!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 5:45pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/72 "2009-02-12T17:45:32Z")

</div>

> > No monkey-patching on my part, just existing 1.8.6 behaviour that changed  
> > in  
> > 1.8.7. I’m all for additions, as long as established behaviour is stable.  
> > Additions should not break existing code if you’re not monkey patching.
> 
> It would be helpful to see exactly what fails.

The cause of the failing tests is a change to Hash ordering between  
versions. See the fix patch for a better idea:

> <https://github.com/jcoglan/packr/commit/9ece59428bbd1bfd497b45a2ae4de2d163a24849>

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:14pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/73 "2009-02-12T18:14:59Z")

</div>

2009/2/12 James C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid):

> > > No monkey-patching on my part, just existing 1.8.6 behaviour that changed
> 
> [Making Collection declarations more robust. Still got a concat bug on… · jcoglan/packr@9ece594 · GitHub](http://github.com/jcoglan/packr/commit/9ece59428bbd1bfd497b45a2ae4de2d163a24849)

What do you mean with “Hash ordering”?  
An order for Hash instances? Hash doesn’t define a \<=\> method.  
Or iteration order of Hash elements? That wasn’t defined  
in 1.8.6 (I don’t know if it is in 1.8.7).

Stefan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/74 "2009-02-12T18:30:21Z")

</div>

Engine Y. is willing to step up as the official maintainer of  
ruby1.8.6. We can provide the right amount of human resources as well  
as server and QA resources with automated CI running the rubyspecs.

I feel that it is very important to keep a stable ruby 1.8.6 lineage  
for some time to come.

Matz has stated that he is willing to pass the torch on maintenance  
of ruby1.8.6 and we would like to step up to the plate for the whole  
ruby community. Please respond here if you think Engine yard would  
make good maintainers of the ruby1.8.6 lineage

Thanks

Ezra Z.  
removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:36pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/75 "2009-02-12T18:36:34Z")

</div>

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Ezra Z. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)  
wrote:

> community. Please respond here if you think Engine yard would make good  
> maintainers of the ruby1.8.6 lineage

I think that’s a great idea. Restating what I said on ruby-core:

This would give those of us who need a stable legacy 1.8 to follow a  
place to look for bug fixes and stablizations. We would be free to  
choose whether we want to support this sort of next-generation Ruby  
1.8 that ruby-core provides, and no matter what side of the fence  
you’re on, you can always follow Ruby 1.9.1 as well if you wish. In  
my case, I’d likely be supporting EYRuby (or whatever you’ll call it),  
and Ruby 1.9.1 from the core team for my projects. Others could mix  
and match as they please, but they will have the luxury of not having  
to dig down into a single release of a branch that has diverged from  
it. That’s cool all around.

Just one question: Have you though about version numbering / naming  
schemes yet?

-greg

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:34pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/76 "2009-02-12T18:34:47Z")

</div>

Ezra Z. wrote:

> the whole ruby community. Please respond here if you think Engine yard

+1.

–  
Ola B. ([http://olabini.com](http://olabini.com))  
Ioke creator ([http://ioke.org](http://ioke.org))  
JRuby Core Developer ([http://jruby.org](http://jruby.org))  
Developer, ThoughtWorks Studios ([http://studios.thoughtworks.com](http://studios.thoughtworks.com))  
Practical JRuby on Rails ([http://apress.com/book/view/9781590598818](http://apress.com/book/view/9781590598818))

“Yields falsehood when quined” yields falsehood when quined.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/77 "2009-02-12T18:38:22Z")

</div>

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Ezra Z.  
[removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)wrote:

> community. Please respond here if you think Engine yard would make good  
> maintainers of the ruby1.8.6 lineage

+1

Although, I’m at a loss as to what you’d use for the version number on  
the  
first maintenance release.

–  
Rick DeNatale

Blog: [http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/)  
Twitter: [http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale](http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/78 "2009-02-12T18:38:57Z")

</div>

- Ezra Z. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) [2009-02-13 02:22:55 +0900]:

> community. Please respond here if you think Engine yard would make good  
> maintainers of the ruby1.8.6 lineage

+1

Thanks,  
Jan

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:45pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/79 "2009-02-12T18:45:40Z")

</div>

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Ezra Z. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)  
wrote:

> community. Please respond here if you think Engine yard would make good  
> maintainers of the ruby1.8.6 lineage

Ezra, this would be an incredible step. Please, please do it.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/n/e47774/32.png) [@naething](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/naething)\
**Post date:** [February 12, 2009, 6:46pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/80 "2009-02-12T18:46:51Z")

</div>

> What do you mean with “Hash ordering”?  
> An order for Hash instances? Hash doesn’t define a \<=\> method.  
> Or iteration order of Hash elements? That wasn’t defined  
> in 1.8.6 (I don’t know if it is in 1.8.7).

In 1.8.6, iteration order would be the same as the order that the keys  
appear in the source. To work with 1.8.7, you need to create an empty  
hash  
and add keys one by one rather than putting them all in a hash literal  
(see  
the patch).

[Previous page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090.md?page=3)

[Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090.md?page=5)