# 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:** 5\ **Page:** 2
**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, 3:09pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/21 "2010-02-16T15:09:01Z")
k I’m all for waiting with rails 3.0 or at least not making it the highest priority. The thing is that most people looking at ironruby are actually .NET people IMO. Now these guys have just gone through what is needed to learn 2.3.5. Seen as most enterprise type devs lean towards the mort persona I’d say they aren’t terribly worried yet about using Rails 3.0 they want to continue 2.3.5 until most of the plugins have caught up. Looking at how fast the community does this stuff I’d say we have well over 6 months to get 1.9 compat going. ## my 2c 🙂 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 16, 2010, 12:31am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/22 "2010-02-16T00:31:03Z")
I honestly don’t think that shipping a 1.0 will delay any future release by much. I also don’t think that a Rails 3 release would hurt the progress towards 1.9. Unless something major changes, I believe all of the 1.8.7 features we are currently lacking for Rails 3 are also 1.9 features. 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 Will G. Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 3:27 PM To: ironruby-core Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] MRI 1.8.7 compatibility 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. > **[hotgazpacho](http://hotgazpacho.org/)** On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Jimmy S. \<[removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)\> wrote: 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) [[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, 4:06pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/23 "2010-02-16T16:06:58Z")
MRI 1.9.1 is my Linux Ruby of choice, so I’m definitely in favour of 1.9 being the focus for IronRuby, and as soon as I can clone a 1.x branch I’ll be all over it, with Rails 3 testing as a focus. (Eventual aim: to prove IronRuby & Rails 3 as a cool Windows Azure solution). Mark On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:22 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 16, 2010, 7:23pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/24 "2010-02-16T19:23:05Z")
Thanks for all the feedback on what you guys are interested in. I would like to request folks to start playing with IronRuby and Rails 2.3.5 today. Mark, trying IronRuby + Rails on Azure sounds like a great project. It would be great if you could look at using Rails 2.3.5 for now. Having such a demo for IronRuby V1 RTM will be a great showcasing of the exiting functionality. I understand that Rails 3 is of interest to folks, and that support will come. But there will always be something new around the corner and we are chasing a moving target in that regards. Getting you folks to play with what works today will be greatly appreciated. Do report the blocking issues you run into. Most of those will apply to getting Rails 3 working as well anyway. Shri 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 Mark Rendle Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 7:06 AM To: [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] MRI 1.8.7 compatibility MRI 1.9.1 is my Linux Ruby of choice, so I’m definitely in favour of 1.9 being the focus for IronRuby, and as soon as I can clone a 1.x branch I’ll be all over it, with Rails 3 testing as a focus. (Eventual aim: to prove IronRuby & Rails 3 as a cool Windows Azure solution). Mark On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 10:22 PM, Jimmy S. \<[removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)\> wrote: 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) [[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… ---
**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, 8:31pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302/25 "2010-02-16T20:31:34Z")
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:30 PM, Jim D. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)wrote: > I honestly don’t think that shipping a 1.0 will delay any future release by > much. I also don’t think that a Rails 3 release would hurt the progress > towards 1.9. Unless something major changes, I believe all of the 1.8.7 > features we are currently lacking for Rails 3 are also 1.9 features. Then that sounds like a great idea then 🙂 Personally I won’t be running rails3 on IronRuby (due to the fact that I’m not working on any webapps at all), but I would like to see rails3 support being not too far behind the release of rails3 itself. Rails is the main drawcard for ruby, and I believe IronRuby would lose credibility by not being able to run rails 3 (even though nobody may actually run it anyway) [Previous page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/mri-1-8-7-compatibility/183302.md?page=1)