# MRI 1.8.7 compatibility **URL:** \ **Category:** IronRuby\ **Created:** [February 11, 2010, 12:59pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302 "2010-02-11T12:59:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 12:59pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/1 "2010-02-11T12:59:45Z")
It seems a shame that the 1.0 release of IronRuby isn’t going to be able to run Rails 3, since they seem to be landing at around the same time. I guess the differences between MRI 1.8.6 and 1.8.7 are pretty major, though, so not much can be done about it at this stage? Any idea how long after the 1.0 RTM we might start seeing 1.8.7 (or 1.9.x?) compatibility? Cheers, Mark ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/2 "2010-02-11T20:56:54Z")
+1 ! Any idea how long after the 1.0 RTM we might start seeing 1.8.7 (or 1.9.x?) ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 10:23pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/3 "2010-02-11T22:23:32Z")
Along these lines: Are you interested in the 1.8.7 features, or just things like Rails compat (which 1.9.x compat would give) JD From: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] On Behalf Of Orion E. Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 11:52 AM To: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] MRI 1.8.7 compatibility +1 ! Any idea how long after the 1.0 RTM we might start seeing 1.8.7 (or 1.9.x?) compatibility? ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/4 "2010-02-11T22:53:24Z")
For me it is just Rails 3.0 compat 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 12:11am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/5 "2010-02-12T00:11:50Z")
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 22:20, Jim D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Are you interested in the 1.8.7 features, or just things like Rails compat > (which 1.9.x compat would give) In all honesty (and regardless of Rails 3.0 compat) I think that working on 1.8.7 features would be a waste of time and that the target for a post-1.0 major release of IronRuby should be set to 1.9. But anyway, this is coming from one of the few ruby devs that doesn’t care a bit about Rails 😉 – Daniele A. > **[clorophilla.net](https://clorophilla.net/)** [http://twitter.com/JoL1hAHN](http://twitter.com/JoL1hAHN) ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 2:17am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/6 "2010-02-12T02:17:42Z")
Personally I’d like the 1.8.7 library changes (The Enumerable module has a bunch more useful stuff in 1.8.7) but beyond that I can’t actually remember what the changes were, so I don’t really miss them 🙂 If IronRuby has 1.9.x compat, then the library changes would get pulled in for that, so the 1.8.7 changes are probably not worth worrying about. ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 6:14am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/7 "2010-02-12T06:14:44Z")
I believe 1.9 includes most of the changes that are in 1.8.7 and 1.8.8. JD From: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] On Behalf Of Orion E. Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 5:17 PM To: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] MRI 1.8.7 compatibility Personally I’d like the 1.8.7 library changes (The Enumerable module has a bunch more useful stuff in 1.8.7) but beyond that I can’t actually remember what the changes were, so I don’t really miss them 🙂 If IronRuby has 1.9.x compat, then the library changes would get pulled in for that, so the 1.8.7 changes are probably not worth worrying about. On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Jim D. \ wrote: Along these lines: Are you interested in the 1.8.7 features, or just things like Rails compat (which 1.9.x compat would give) JD From: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] On Behalf Of Orion E. Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 11:52 AM To: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] MRI 1.8.7 compatibility +1 ! Any idea how long after the 1.0 RTM we might start seeing 1.8.7 (or 1.9.x?) compatibility? ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 1:21pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/8 "2010-02-12T13:21:58Z")
* * * Ironruby-core mailing list removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core](http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core) ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2010, 10:34am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/9 "2010-02-13T10:34:05Z")
Mainly Rails 3.0 compatibility. I’d far rather 1.9.x than 1.8.7, but not at the expense of Rails compatibility taking longer. Mark ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2010, 3:13pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/10 "2010-02-14T15:13:28Z")
+1 for 1.9 Once you consider that by the time IronRuby claims 1.8.7 compat Ruby will likely have a 1.8.9, I think going for 1.9 just makes the most sense. Everything else is moving or has moved to 1.9, so I’d rather see that happen. Ryan R. Email: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid LinkedIn: [http://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanriley](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanriley) Blog: [http://wizardsofsmart.net/](http://wizardsofsmart.net/) Twitter: @panesofglass Website: [http://panesofglass.org/](http://panesofglass.org/) ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2010, 6:53am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/11 "2010-02-12T06:53:57Z")
+1 for 1.9 ## 1.8.7 and 1.8.8 are backport releases with stuff they put in Ruby 1.9 AFAIK Met vriendelijke groeten - Best regards - Salutations Ivan Porto C. Blog: [http://flanders.co.nz](http://flanders.co.nz) Twitter: [http://twitter.com/casualjim](http://twitter.com/casualjim) Author of IronRuby in Action ([IronRuby in Action - Ivan Porto Carrero and Adam Burmister | Manning](http://manning.com/carrero)) ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 9:33pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/12 "2010-02-15T21:33:08Z")
Here’s the current compatibility plan, let me know if this concerns anyone: > # IronRuby 1.x releases: ONLY ruby-1.9 compatible > > Active development will still happens in the master branch, which > will be only focused on ruby-1.9 support. This means the master > branch will lose ruby-1.8.6 compatibility as breaking changes > between ruby-1.8.6 and ruby-1.9 are implemented. However, we’ll > probably look at implementing 1.8.7 features that are also in 1.9, > so we might get ruby-1.8.7 compatibility as a byproduct of that, > but it’s not something we’ll be testing. Most ruby implementations are also moving away from supporting 1.8 and 1.9 in the same codebase as well. Even more extreme, MacRuby is completely skipping 1.8 compatibility, but that technically makes sense as they are a fork of the 1.9 codebase. ~Jimmy ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 9:03pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/13 "2010-02-15T21:03:17Z")
Here’s the current compatibility plan, let me know if this concerns anyone: > # IronRuby 1.x releases: ONLY ruby-1.9 compatible > > Active development will still happens in the master branch, which will > be only focused on ruby-1.9 support. This means the master branch will > lose ruby-1.8.6 compatibility as breaking changes between ruby-1.8.6 > and ruby-1.9 are implemented. However, we’ll probably look at > implementing 1.8.7 features that are also in 1.9, so we might get > ruby-1.8.7 compatibility as a byproduct of that, but it’s not > something we’ll be testing. Most ruby implementations are also moving away from supporting 1.8 and 1.9 in the same codebase as well. Even more extreme, MacRuby is completely skipping 1.8 compatibility, but that technically makes sense as they are a fork of the 1.9 codebase. ~Jimmy ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 9:58pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/14 "2010-02-15T21:58:18Z")
How much effort is it to get 1.8.7 compatible? How much to get 1.9 compatible? What is driving the push to release 1.0? My fear is that releasing 1.0 so close to release of Rails 3 without the ability to run it will do little for IronRuby’s image in the wider Ruby community (who, from my admittedly limited experience, care about weather it can run Rails or not). – Will G. [http://hotgazpacho.org/](http://hotgazpacho.org/) On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 4:17 PM, Jimmy S. \< ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 10:53pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/15 "2010-02-15T22:53:54Z")
> IronRuby 1.0.x releases: ONLY ruby-1.8.6 compatible > IronRuby 1.x releases: ONLY ruby-1.9 compatible > My fear is that releasing 1.0 so close to release of Rails 3 without the > ability to run it will do little for IronRuby’s image in the wider Ruby > community (who, from my admittedly limited experience, care about weather it > can run Rails or not). +1. While it seems logical to go down the path jimmy mentioned, It looks like what will happen is that rails3 won’t run on IronRuby at all until the 1.x releases build up 1.9 compat to a decent enough point and stabilize. Is 1.9 compat a big deal? It seems like it would be a ton of work to implement 1.9 compatibility in a stable way - thereby leaving IronRuby unable to run rails 3 for a long long time… ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 11:07pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/16 "2010-02-15T23:07:22Z")
DISCLAIMER: We haven’t discussed this yet, I’m just tossing it out to get thoughts. One option may be to put Rails 3 compat as the focus for 1.1, so that we do 1.0 in a few months on our current timeline, then put the focus into implementing the needed things for Rails 3. After that we can continue onto 1.9 support. Thoughts? JD From: [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] On Behalf Of Orion E. Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 1:51 PM To: [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] MRI 1.8.7 compatibility > IronRuby 1.0.x releases: ONLY ruby-1.8.6 compatible > IronRuby 1.x releases: ONLY ruby-1.9 compatible My fear is that releasing 1.0 so close to release of Rails 3 without the ability to run it will do little for IronRuby’s image in the wider Ruby community (who, from my admittedly limited experience, care about weather it can run Rails or not). +1. While it seems logical to go down the path jimmy mentioned, It looks like what will happen is that rails3 won’t run on IronRuby at all until the 1.x releases build up 1.9 compat to a decent enough point and stabilize. Is 1.9 compat a big deal? It seems like it would be a ton of work to implement 1.9 compatibility in a stable way - thereby leaving IronRuby unable to run rails 3 for a long long time… ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 11:23pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/17 "2010-02-15T23:23:10Z")
Good point, but slight overreaction =) Running Rails 3 and being 1.8.7 compatible can be completely different goals, as Rails 3 doesn’t use all of the 1.8.7 features. =) We can implement the features needed for Rails 3 for the releases after 1.0, so we may turn out to be compatible-enough with 1.8.7 for Rails 3. But, since we’re not going to run tests against both 1.8.7 and 1.9, we won’t be compatible enough to actually say “ruby-1.8.7 compatible”. Plus, we’d like to start ripping out ruby-1.8 features from the 1.x releases, so that might be an impossible statement. Since 1.9 is the future of Ruby, we’re jumping directly to supporting it, as that will position IronRuby for great compatibility in the future, rather than trying to optimize for the current state of the ruby-world. If Rails 3 on IronRuby 1.1 or 1.2 is very important to people, than it’ll find a way of happening. But 1.8.x support is a dead-end, and not worth the IronRuby core team’s or contributor’s time. Plus, Matz ordered me to stop caring about 1.8 support, so I can’t say no to that =P Are there other reasons why it’s important for IronRuby to be ruby-1.8.7 compatible? If not, I’d prefer to just prioritize any changes needed for “Rails 3 support”, rather than 1.8.7 support. ~Jimmy From: [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] On Behalf Of Orion E. Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 1:51 PM To: [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] MRI 1.8.7 compatibility > IronRuby 1.0.x releases: ONLY ruby-1.8.6 compatible > IronRuby 1.x releases: ONLY ruby-1.9 compatible My fear is that releasing 1.0 so close to release of Rails 3 without the ability to run it will do little for IronRuby’s image in the wider Ruby community (who, from my admittedly limited experience, care about weather it can run Rails or not). +1. While it seems logical to go down the path jimmy mentioned, It looks like what will happen is that rails3 won’t run on IronRuby at all until the 1.x releases build up 1.9 compat to a decent enough point and stabilize. Is 1.9 compat a big deal? It seems like it would be a ton of work to implement 1.9 compatibility in a stable way - thereby leaving IronRuby unable to run rails 3 for a long long time… ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 11:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/18 "2010-02-15T23:30:46Z")
1. What’s the story on the other implementations for Rails 3? In other words, will JRuby, Rubinius, et. al. run Rails 3 out of the gate? If so, are they doing it on a 1.9 compat version or 1.8.7? If they are pursuing the former, no one will be able to fault IronRuby for not supporting Rails. If the latter, well, that’s your decision. 🙂 2. I’m not hard up for running Rails 3 on IronRuby. People are running Rails apps on \*nix boxes now. A few more months isn’t going to hurt them. Also, while deploying Rails more easily on Windows is a selling point for IronRuby, I think most will likely be on Rails 2.3.5 or previous for some time to come until they get up to speed with Rails 3. We have time. 3. I really don’t see Rails, in general, as a primary reason for using IronRuby. There are a number of other libraries (some running on 1.9) that would be more likely candidates for driving IronRuby adoption. Stopping the presses just to get Rails 3 running when that doesn’t drive 1.9 forward seems a bit short-sighted. In other words, I like the current plan. 🙂 Ryan R. Email: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid LinkedIn: [http://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanriley](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanriley) Blog: [http://wizardsofsmart.net/](http://wizardsofsmart.net/) Twitter: @panesofglass Website: [http://panesofglass.org/](http://panesofglass.org/) ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 15, 2010, 11:38pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/19 "2010-02-15T23:38:22Z")
JRuby, Rubinius and MacRuby will support Rails 3, but all three of them are either working on a version to support 1.9 (Jruby), or only targeting 1.9 (the other 2). We’ve said a few times in the halls that if we had noticed the timing a year ago, 1.9 would probably have been a better 1.0 target, but at this point, changing directions makes no sense. We can focus on Rails 3 among other priorities after 1.0. To ship is to choose ☺ JD From: [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] On Behalf Of Ryan R. Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 2:30 PM To: [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] MRI 1.8.7 compatibility 1. What’s the story on the other implementations for Rails 3? In other words, will JRuby, Rubinius, et. al. run Rails 3 out of the gate? If so, are they doing it on a 1.9 compat version or 1.8.7? If they are pursuing the former, no one will be able to fault IronRuby for not supporting Rails. If the latter, well, that’s your decision. 🙂 2. I’m not hard up for running Rails 3 on IronRuby. People are running Rails apps on \*nix boxes now. A few more months isn’t going to hurt them. Also, while deploying Rails more easily on Windows is a selling point for IronRuby, I think most will likely be on Rails 2.3.5 or previous for some time to come until they get up to speed with Rails 3. We have time. 3. I really don’t see Rails, in general, as a primary reason for using IronRuby. There are a number of other libraries (some running on 1.9) that would be more likely candidates for driving IronRuby adoption. Stopping the presses just to get Rails 3 running when that doesn’t drive 1.9 forward seems a bit short-sighted. In other words, I like the current plan. 🙂 Ryan R. Email: [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) LinkedIn: [Ryan Riley - Quorum Software | LinkedIn](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanriley) Blog: [http://wizardsofsmart.net/](http://wizardsofsmart.net/) Twitter: @panesofglass Website: [http://panesofglass.org/](http://panesofglass.org/) On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 4:03 PM, Jim D. \<[removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)\> wrote: DISCLAIMER: We haven’t discussed this yet, I’m just tossing it out to get thoughts. One option may be to put Rails 3 compat as the focus for 1.1, so that we do 1.0 in a few months on our current timeline, then put the focus into implementing the needed things for Rails 3. After that we can continue onto 1.9 support. Thoughts? JD From: [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] On Behalf Of Orion E. Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 1:51 PM To: [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] MRI 1.8.7 compatibility > IronRuby 1.0.x releases: ONLY ruby-1.8.6 compatible > IronRuby 1.x releases: ONLY ruby-1.9 compatible My fear is that releasing 1.0 so close to release of Rails 3 without the ability to run it will do little for IronRuby’s image in the wider Ruby community (who, from my admittedly limited experience, care about weather it can run Rails or not). +1. While it seems logical to go down the path jimmy mentioned, It looks like what will happen is that rails3 won’t run on IronRuby at all until the 1.x releases build up 1.9 compat to a decent enough point and stabilize. Is 1.9 compat a big deal? It seems like it would be a ton of work to implement 1.9 compatibility in a stable way - thereby leaving IronRuby unable to run rails 3 for a long long time… * * * Ironruby-core mailing list [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) [http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core](http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core) ---
**Author:** ![Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/d07c76/32.png) [@Mark\_Rendle](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Mark_Rendle)\ **Post date:** [February 16, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/20 "2010-02-16T00:26:57Z")
Overreact? I _never_ do that 😉 If you guys are close to shipping 1.0, then I don’t have a problem with a newer patch level release, like 1.0.1 or 1.0.2, providing just enough 1.8.7 compat to support Rails 3. On the other hand, if you think that 1.9 support is attainable this year, I’d rather see the team focus on that. – Will G. [http://hotgazpacho.org/](http://hotgazpacho.org/) On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Jimmy S. \< [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302.md?page=2)