# 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:** 5

<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, 6:42pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/81 "2009-02-12T18:42:06Z")

</div>

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Rick DeNatale  
[removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

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

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

Just a thought…

RUBY\_VERSION #=\> “1.8.6”  
EY\_RUBY\_VERSION #=\> “1.0.0”

-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, 6:52pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/82 "2009-02-12T18:52:08Z")

</div>

On Feb 12, 2009, at 11:36 AM, Rick DeNatale wrote:

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

1.8.6.1 perhaps? It still sorts well.

James Edward G. II

---

<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, 6:58pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/83 "2009-02-12T18:58:10Z")

</div>

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Gregory B.  
[removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> Just a thought…
> 
> RUBY\_VERSION #=\> “1.8.6”  
> EY\_RUBY\_VERSION #=\> “1.0.0”

which probably means Ruby 1.8.6.1 or Ruby186 1.0

---

<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, 6:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/84 "2009-02-12T18:56:59Z")

</div>

Rick DeNatale wrote:

> > ```
> > Matz has stated that he is willing to pass the torch on maintenance
> > 
> > ```

What about 1.8.6.1?

–  
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, 7:05pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/85 "2009-02-12T19:05:50Z")

</div>

Ezra Z. wrote:

> ```
> 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.

+1

Personally, I’d rather see a 1.9-compatible Merb, but it’s looking like  
I’ll have to wait for Rails 3 for that.

---

<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, 7:11pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/86 "2009-02-12T19:11:07Z")

</div>

Hi –

On Fri, 13 Feb 2009, James C. wrote:

> 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).

Hashes aren’t ordered at all in 1.8, as far as I know. This works the  
same in 1.8.6 and 1.8.7:

irb(main):002:0\> h = {3,4,1,2}  
=\> {1=\>2, 3=\>4}  
irb(main):003:0\> h.each {|\*x| p x }  
[[1, 2]]  
[[3, 4]]  
=\> {1=\>2, 3=\>4}

and here’s a 1.8.7 case with individual key insertion:

irb(main):001:0\> h = {}  
=\> {}  
irb(main):002:0\> h[3] = 4  
=\> 4  
irb(main):003:0\> h[1] = 2  
=\> 2  
irb(main):004:0\> h.each {|\*x| p x }  
[[1, 2]]  
[[3, 4]]

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, 7:07pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/87 "2009-02-12T19:07:35Z")

</div>

On Feb 12, 2009, at 3:03 AM, Brian C. wrote:

> As for numbering, it’s not so important, but the current scheme is  
> silly  
> and appears to be based on an irrational fear of exceeding 1.9.  
> AFAICT,  
> this is either because the string “1.10” doesn’t sort after “1.9”, or  
> because 2.0 would somehow imply the language is especially “blessed”  
> or  
> “finalised”.

I have no problems with the 1.9 release. I feel like the reasoning  
has been well explained and I understand it.

Essentially, a lot was promised for 2.0. About half of it has been  
built. We could have kept waiting for the other half, or release what  
was done. It’s not all of 2.0 though, so it’s instead called 1.9.

Also, it was decided that it’s silly to lose an entire branch for  
development (like 1.7). Thus x.x.0 now means development and we only  
lose one version number. That’s why 1.9.1 is the first stable release  
of the 1.9 branch.

I feel like that all makes sense.

James Edward G. II

---

<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, 7:15pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/88 "2009-02-12T19:15:14Z")

</div>

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 9:22 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

Thanks!! Yes, I think you’d be ideal for this. I do have some questions,  
though:

1. Would there be a chance of merging the efficiencies of Ruby  
Enterprise Edition, especially copy-on-write friendliness, into the  
“Engine Y. 1.8.6 stack?”

2. Will this impact Rubinius?

3. Will there be a contribution to the Windows One-Click Installer  
project as part of this?

4. Will there be some “community management” / “marketing” effort  
associated with interfacing to the major Linux distros?  
(Debian/Ubuntu, Fedora/Red Hat/CentOS, openSUSE/SLES/Novell for sure,  
and probably Gentoo as well)

–  
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

I’ve never met a happy clam. In fact, most of them were pretty steamed.

---

<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, 7:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/89 "2009-02-12T19:16:24Z")

</div>

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:55 PM, pat eyler [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> > > Although, I’m at a loss as to what you’d use for the version number on the  
> > > first maintenance release.
> > 
> > Just a thought…
> > 
> > RUBY\_VERSION #=\> “1.8.6”  
> > EY\_RUBY\_VERSION #=\> “1.0.0”
> 
> which probably means Ruby 1.8.6.1 or Ruby186 1.0

Yeah, I think maybe 1.8.6.1 is a better idea than what I offered,  
actually.

-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, 7:20pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/90 "2009-02-12T19:20:30Z")

</div>

I really feel that Ruby1.8.6 “deserves” more respect. It will probably  
be in use for a long time yet.  
Now I will not say to whomever is doing this great job on Ruby1.8 you  
have to do this or that, I am not _that_ stupid.  
But those of us, who simply express their sincere opinion on the  
subject should not be treated as a mob, or somebody too stupid to  
follow to 1.9.1 neither, hopefully most of us agree with this?

Cheers  
Robert

---

<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, 7:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/91 "2009-02-12T19:13:28Z")

</div>

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

> In 1.8.6, iteration order would be the same as the order that the keys  
> appear in the source.

Iteration order is undefined, even for hash literals.  
This is on _my_ machine:

```
$ ruby -v -e '{2 => 0, 1 => 0}.each_pair { |k,v| p k }'
ruby 1.8.6 (2007-09-24 patchlevel 111) [x86_64-linux]
1
2

```

Your code happened to work by chance.

> 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).

Do I understand that the code relies on insertion order now?  
Then it’s still working by chance in case it works at all.

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, 7:26pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/92 "2009-02-12T19:26:56Z")

</div>

+1, because things have broken.

I am happy with 1.8.6 and 1.9. It’s just that 1.8.7 introduces a lot  
of noise, anyone would expect it to be compatible with 1.8.6, as  
mentioned.

---

<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, 7:28pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/93 "2009-02-12T19:28:07Z")

</div>

Justin C. wrote:

> > > version checks based on string compares:  
> > > =\> true  
> > > irb(main):002:0\> “1.8.A” \> “1.8.8”  
> > > =\> true
> > 
> > Nah, too weird!
> 
> I was looking at Erlang the other day.  
> On the front page of [erlang.org](http://erlang.org):
> 
> “Erlang/OTP R12B-5 released\*”\*

Someday, they’ll get up to 27B-6… (sorry, way too off-topic now).

---

<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, 7:31pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/94 "2009-02-12T19:31:39Z")

</div>

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

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

That’d be great!

Rupert

---

<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, 7:49pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/95 "2009-02-12T19:49:26Z")

</div>

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Rick DeNatale  
[removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> As long as the downstream packagers pick up on it, but without additional  
> help, I think that most systems would treat 1.8.7 as compatible with, and  
> ‘better’ than 1.8.6.x.

[elided]

> But I 'll reiterate that I think that the idea of maintaining 1.8.6 with  
> fixed semantics is a good idea.

Good points. I wonder what matz is willing to turn over. If it’s the  
1.8 line,  
then the next release should probably be 1.8.8 and represent a  
continuation of the 1.8.6 line. If he wants to maintain a 1.8.X and  
1.9.X  
line, then I think we need to think about either a 1.8.6.X or a  
RubyClassic  
1.0 (or something like 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, 7:52pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/96 "2009-02-12T19:52:23Z")

</div>

Hi,

At Fri, 13 Feb 2009 02:36:06 +0900,  
Rick DeNatale wrote in [ruby-talk:327919]:

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

1.8.6-p###.

---

<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, 8:01pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/97 "2009-02-12T20:01:48Z")

</div>

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

> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:22 PM, Ezra Z. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:
> 
> > ```
> > Engine Y. is willing to step up as the official maintainer of
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > ruby1.8.6.  
> > (…)
> 
> This would give those of us who need a stable legacy 1.8 to follow a  
> place to look for bug fixes and stablizations.

Gregory, there is no Ruby 1.8 and has never been. There have been  
1.8.0, 1.8.1, up to 1.8.7, each one differing from the others. I’m  
sure that for each new version you can find new methods introduced  
and/or behaviour of existing methods changed. This was the point I  
never understood: what’s so special about the transition to 1.8.7?

I think what most of you really want is to keep 1.8.6, not some  
ominous “Ruby 1.8”, what ever this should be. Ezra has put this right:  
“maintainer of 1.8.6”.

So, you keep your 1.8.6, and others can go on to 1.8.7 and beyond. I  
think this would be a perfect solution.

Regards,  
Pit

---

<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, 7:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/98 "2009-02-12T19:38:09Z")

</div>

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Ola B. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:

> > >

As long as the downstream packagers pick up on it, but without  
additional  
help, I think that most systems would treat 1.8.7 as compatible with,  
and  
‘better’ than 1.8.6.x.

Examples.

Debian only uses the major and minor to differentiate different  
packages.  
The Ubuntu list of Ruby packages illustrates this:  
[Ubuntu – Package Search Results -- ruby](http://packages.ubuntu.com/search?keywords=ruby) There are separate  
Ruby1.8  
and Ruby1.9 packages.

Note that the newer Debian systems map Ruby1.8 to Ruby 1.8.7 they also  
seem  
to use patchlevel and other information to generate their own fourth  
level  
version numbers

Macports only seems to have s single Ruby which is currently at 1.8.7

> port list ruby  
> ruby @1.8.7-p72 lang/ruby

Considering how much trouble there’s been reconciling the issues around  
rubygems and debian, I’m not very confident that package maintainers  
will  
treat 1.8.6.x and 1.8.7 as different upstream versions.

But I 'll reiterate that I think that the idea of maintaining 1.8.6 with  
fixed semantics is a good idea.

–  
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, 8:35pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/99 "2009-02-12T20:35:23Z")

</div>

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

> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Pit C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote:
> 
> > Gregory, there is no Ruby 1.8 and has never been. There have been  
> > 1.8.0, 1.8.1, up to 1.8.7, each one differing from the others.
> 
> You keep saying this but frankly, it’s ridiculous. Yes, you can find  
> changes. In Ruby 1.8.7, you get clubbed over the head with them.

So we agree to disagree. Though I’d be interested in what you’d define  
as “Ruby 1.8”. Is it 1.8.6? Why not 1.8.2? Does 1.8.5 qualify as being  
a “Ruby 1.8”, despite the differences to 1.8.6? In the end I’m sure it  
will be 1.8.6, so why not name it as such? Why interpret more into it  
as it really is?

> We’re not in disagreement here. It’s just been my experience that I  
> can write code on 1.8.6 without thinking about back-wards  
> compatibility with earlier versions, for the most part. We all know  
> that things have changed, but not in so radical a fashion.

Hmm, let’s see how radical a change 1.8.7 has been until now:  
Hash#hash has been changed (or should I say: fixed), it’s not allowed  
to allocate new objects during garbage collection anymore (the SWIG  
problem), plus (admittedly a large number of) new features have been  
added. I wouldn’t call this radical, but, again, we just disagree  
here, so I’ll shut up now.

Regards,  
Pit

---

<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, 8:10pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090/100 "2009-02-12T20:10:41Z")

</div>

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Pit C. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)  
wrote:

> 1.8.0, 1.8.1, up to 1.8.7, each one differing from the others. I’m  
> sure that for each new version you can find new methods introduced  
> and/or behaviour of existing methods changed. This was the point I  
> never understood: what’s so special about the transition to 1.8.7?

You keep saying this but frankly, it’s ridiculous. Yes, you can find  
changes. In Ruby 1.8.7, you get clubbed over the head with them.

> I think what most of you really want is to keep 1.8.6, not some  
> ominous “Ruby 1.8”, what ever this should be. Ezra has put this right:  
> “maintainer of 1.8.6”.
> 
> So, you keep your 1.8.6, and others can go on to 1.8.7 and beyond. I  
> think this would be a perfect solution.

We’re not in disagreement here. It’s just been my experience that I  
can write code on 1.8.6 without thinking about back-wards  
compatibility with earlier versions, for the most part. We all know  
that things have changed, but not in so radical a fashion.

What I was supporting was a stable ‘flavor’ of Ruby 1.8, in the form  
of a EY supported 1.8.6.

And I agree completely that this solves the issue without forcing  
people in one direction or the other. If ruby-core wishes to support  
1.8.7 and beyond, those who like the idea will not be left  
disappointed.

-greg

[Previous page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090.md?page=4)

[Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/if-you-are-unhappy-with-the-direction-of-ruby-1-8-7-respond/160090.md?page=6)