# Next stable 1.9.x **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [March 4, 2009, 11:05pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/next-stable-1-9-x/162018 "2009-03-04T23:05:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mike343](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/58f4c7/32.png) [@mike343](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike343)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 11:05pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/next-stable-1-9-x/162018/1 "2009-03-04T23:05:22Z")
Does anyone know if there’s a projected timeline for the next 1.9.x stable release (1.9.2)? # ======================================================================= This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended addressee. It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be the subject of legal or other privilege, none of which is waived or lost by reason of this transmission. If the receiver is not the intended addressee, please accept our apologies, notify us by return, delete all copies and perform no other act on the email. Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been altered or corrupted during transmission. ---
**Author:** ![mike343](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/58f4c7/32.png) [@mike343](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike343)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2009, 11:36pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/next-stable-1-9-x/162018/2 "2009-03-04T23:36:35Z")
I hope it’s quick. One of the extensions I work with and on (Rice) dies horribly with 1.9.1 when exceptions are thrown, and works wonderfully under the current trunk (1.9.2dev). This is the best information I could find on this question: [http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/versions/show/11](http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/versions/show/11) Jason On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Michael M. ---
**Author:** ![mike343](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/58f4c7/32.png) [@mike343](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike343)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 10:17pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/next-stable-1-9-x/162018/3 "2009-03-05T22:17:22Z")
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Michael M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > other act on the email. > Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been > altered or corrupted during transmission. > Meaning, we should ignore this? Sorry no info on your question, but I could not resist whacking at those “legal obligations”. Cheers Robert ---
**Author:** ![mike343](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/58f4c7/32.png) [@mike343](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike343)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 10:29pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/next-stable-1-9-x/162018/4 "2009-03-05T22:29:49Z")
Robert D. wrote: > > lost by reason of this transmission. > > Cheers > Robert Yeah, our mail server attaches them to every outgoing message. Corporations: Adding unenforceable cruft to untraceable messages since 1992 Michael And here’s another for you: # ======================================================================= This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended addressee. It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be the subject of legal or other privilege, none of which is waived or lost by reason of this transmission. If the receiver is not the intended addressee, please accept our apologies, notify us by return, delete all copies and perform no other act on the email. Unfortunately, we cannot warrant that the email has not been altered or corrupted during transmission. ---
**Author:** ![mike343](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/58f4c7/32.png) [@mike343](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike343)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2009, 10:55pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/next-stable-1-9-x/162018/5 "2009-03-05T22:55:40Z")
Michael M. wrote: > Robert D. wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Michael M. > > [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > This email, including any attachments, is only for the intended > > > addressee. It is subject to copyright, is confidential and may be > > > […] > > Sorry no info on your question, but I could not resist whacking at > > those “legal obligations”. > Yeah, our mail server attaches them to every outgoing message. > Corporations: Adding unenforceable cruft to untraceable messages since 1992 If you put a "-- " line at the end of your email, it might at least make the cruft look like an ordinary sig.