Forum: Ruby time to back peddle? (Ruby 1.8.7)

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
45196398e9685000d195ec626d477f0e?d=identicon&s=25 Thomas Sawyer (7rans)
on 2008-11-26 14:00
(Received via mailing list)
I just updated my Ubuntu system and was a bit surprised to find:

  $ ruby -v
  ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72) [i486-linux]

I've heard nothing but bad commentary on this version of Ruby. What's
the word? Should I down-grade?
Bec38d63650c8912b6ba9b557fb953b9?d=identicon&s=25 Roger Pack (rogerdpack)
on 2008-11-26 15:25
> I've heard nothing but bad commentary on this version of Ruby. What's
> the word? Should I down-grade?

For better or worse, the 187 branch is basically the only one that gets
any attention from the core developers [i.e. patches] so...I'd say
either one is ok.
-=R
134ea397777886d6f0aa992672a50eaa?d=identicon&s=25 Mark Thomas (Guest)
on 2008-11-26 15:25
(Received via mailing list)
On Nov 26, 7:55 am, Trans <transf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just updated my Ubuntu system and was a bit surprised to find:
>
>   $ ruby -v
>   ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72) [i486-linux]
>
> I've heard nothing but bad commentary on this version of Ruby. What's
> the word? Should I down-grade?

This happened to me, and it was an "uh-oh" moment for me too. I think
my bad feeling about it comes from Rails. Although I've heard that
Rails 2.1+ has 1.8.7 compatibility, the official site (http://
www.rubyonrails.org/down) hasn't been updated with respect to its
stance on ruby versions.

-- Mark.
86e33dee4a89a8879a26487051c216a8?d=identicon&s=25 Michael Fellinger (Guest)
on 2008-11-26 18:48
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:55 PM, Trans <transfire@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just updated my Ubuntu system and was a bit surprised to find:
>
>  $ ruby -v
>  ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72) [i486-linux]
>
> I've heard nothing but bad commentary on this version of Ruby. What's
> the word? Should I down-grade?

Using it since the release in spring, had an issue in the prerelease
version, but nothing bad happened since.
Aee77dba395ece0a04c688b05b07cd63?d=identicon&s=25 Daniel Berger (djberg96)
on 2008-11-26 20:15
(Received via mailing list)
On Nov 26, 5:55 am, Trans <transf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just updated my Ubuntu system and was a bit surprised to find:
>
>   $ ruby -v
>   ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72) [i486-linux]
>
> I've heard nothing but bad commentary on this version of Ruby. What's
> the word? Should I down-grade?

I abandoned it quickly when at least one of my libraries (use) because
of a bug. That, and Rails (for work).

Regards,

Dan
Cffe91a6cc6e6ce8213ed575821dadf7?d=identicon&s=25 Anatoly Mikhailov (mikhailov)
on 2008-11-27 16:31
As you may know Ruby 1.8.7 don't compatable with
Rails(http://www.rubyonrails.org/down)
We recommend Ruby 1.8.6 for use with Rails. Ruby 1.8.7, 1.8.5, 1.8.4 and
1.8.2 are still usable too, but version 1.8.3 is not.
Ruby 1.8.7 still has some bugs to straighten out.

Step-by-step to downgrade Ruby to 1.8.6 manual
http://railsgeek.com/2008/11/27/ubuntu-8-10-downgr...

Daniel Berger wrote:
> On Nov 26, 5:55�am, Trans <transf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I just updated my Ubuntu system and was a bit surprised to find:
>>
>> � $ ruby -v
>> � ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72) [i486-linux]
>>
>> I've heard nothing but bad commentary on this version of Ruby. What's
>> the word? Should I down-grade?
>
> I abandoned it quickly when at least one of my libraries (use) because
> of a bug. That, and Rails (for work).
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
Cffe91a6cc6e6ce8213ed575821dadf7?d=identicon&s=25 Anatoly Mikhailov (mikhailov)
on 2008-11-27 16:32
(Received via mailing list)
As you may know Ruby 1.8.7 don't compatable with Rails(http://
www.rubyonrails.org/down)
We recommend Ruby 1.8.6 for use with Rails. Ruby 1.8.7, 1.8.5, 1.8.4
and 1.8.2 are still usable too, but version 1.8.3 is not.
Ruby 1.8.7 still has some bugs to straighten out.

Step-by-step to downgrade Ruby to 1.8.6 manual
http://railsgeek.com/2008/11/27/ubuntu-8-10-downgr...
Ede2aa10c6462f1d825143879be59e38?d=identicon&s=25 Charles Oliver Nutter (Guest)
on 2008-11-27 17:01
(Received via mailing list)
Trans wrote:
> I just updated my Ubuntu system and was a bit surprised to find:
>
>   $ ruby -v
>   ruby 1.8.7 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 72) [i486-linux]
>
> I've heard nothing but bad commentary on this version of Ruby. What's
> the word? Should I down-grade?

FWIW, we've decided not to support 1.8.7 in JRuby. That may change if
everyone starts depending on 1.8.7-only features, but I sure hope that
doesn't happen.

- Charlie
8a85c693f13ef7cb542ef94d2a403d4d?d=identicon&s=25 Luc Heinrich (Guest)
on 2008-11-28 09:42
(Received via mailing list)
On 27 nov. 08, at 16:27, Anatoly Mikhailov wrote:

> As you may know Ruby 1.8.7 don't compatable with
> Rails(http://www.rubyonrails.org/down)

Uh, this page *explicitely* says: "We recommend Ruby 1.8.7 for use
with Rails".
134ea397777886d6f0aa992672a50eaa?d=identicon&s=25 Mark Thomas (Guest)
on 2008-12-02 04:55
(Received via mailing list)
On Nov 28, 3:36 am, Luc Heinrich <l...@honk-honk.com> wrote:
> On 27 nov. 08, at 16:27, Anatoly Mikhailov wrote:
>
> > As you may know Ruby 1.8.7 don't compatable with
> > Rails(http://www.rubyonrails.org/down)
>
> Uh, this page *explicitely* says: "We recommend Ruby 1.8.7 for use  
> with Rails".

Yay! It's been fixed. Probably due to this thread.
F50f5d582d76f98686da34917531fe56?d=identicon&s=25 Peter Szinek (Guest)
on 2008-12-02 09:41
(Received via mailing list)
Guys, I am a bit confused ;-) So is it (not) recommended to switch to
1.8.7? I'd like to, but I am not sure after this thread?

Cheers,
Peter
___
http://www.rubyrailways.com
http://scrubyt.org
Ede2aa10c6462f1d825143879be59e38?d=identicon&s=25 Charles Oliver Nutter (Guest)
on 2008-12-02 17:50
(Received via mailing list)
Put simply: 1.8.7 has features and behavioral changes that are
compatible with neither 1.9 nor 1.8.6. So it's up to you.
31e038e4e9330f6c75ccfd1fca8010ee?d=identicon&s=25 Gregory Brown (Guest)
on 2008-12-02 19:39
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Roger Pack <rogerpack2005@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>> I've heard nothing but bad commentary on this version of Ruby. What's
>> the word? Should I down-grade?
>
> For better or worse, the 187 branch is basically the only one that gets
> any attention from the core developers [i.e. patches] so...I'd say
> either one is ok.

Though support was dropped for Ruby <= 1.8.5, 1.8.6 is still
officially supported, AFAIK.

$ ruby -v
ruby 1.8.6 (2008-08-11 patchlevel 287) [i686-darwin9.4.0]

-greg
Bec38d63650c8912b6ba9b557fb953b9?d=identicon&s=25 Roger Pack (rogerdpack)
on 2008-12-03 18:26
> Though support was dropped for Ruby <= 1.8.5, 1.8.6 is still
> officially supported, AFAIK.

It is indeed officially supported but, judging from the commit logs,
1.8.7 and 1.9 get WAY more attention.  If that's a factor in deciding or
not :) ].
-=R
31e038e4e9330f6c75ccfd1fca8010ee?d=identicon&s=25 Gregory Brown (Guest)
on 2008-12-03 19:23
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Roger Pack <rogerpack2005@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> Though support was dropped for Ruby <= 1.8.5, 1.8.6 is still
>> officially supported, AFAIK.
>
> It is indeed officially supported but, judging from the commit logs,
> 1.8.7 and 1.9 get WAY more attention.  If that's a factor in deciding or
> not :) ].

As they should.  The fact that Ruby 1.8.6 is not changing much is a
feature.
Ruby 1.9.1 is being stabilized for its first production ready release,
so it's no surprise that it is active.

But why *should* Ruby 1.8.7 be extensively patched?  One can only hope
it is to remove all of the 1.8.7-isms and bring it back to
compatibility with Ruby 1.8. :)

-greg
Bec38d63650c8912b6ba9b557fb953b9?d=identicon&s=25 Roger Pack (rogerdpack)
on 2008-12-03 20:45
> As they should.  The fact that Ruby 1.8.6 is not changing much is a
> feature.
> Ruby 1.9.1 is being stabilized for its first production ready release,
> so it's no surprise that it is active.
>
> But why *should* Ruby 1.8.7 be extensively patched?  One can only hope
> it is to remove all of the 1.8.7-isms and bring it back to
> compatibility with Ruby 1.8. :)

LOL. Yeah I'm wish you on this one.  That is is somewhat annoying to
have to support the new version.  To me, though, since I'm interested in
hacking core and getting patches accepted, 1.8.7 is probably a better
bet.

Unfortunately, also, judging from the latest 1.8.7 changelog [1] I'd
wager there are quite a few bugs that get squashed in 1.8.7 but not in
1.8.6, but hopefully they don't matter :)
-=R
[1] http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/repositories/show/ruby-187 at the
bottom
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.