Forum: Typo Re: Questions for a white paper involving a demo install ofT

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.
D47ab08137790ad6c2c8b22f1b7a9825?d=identicon&s=25 Leibowitz, Samuel J (Guest)
on 2006-04-11 21:36
(Received via mailing list)
Wow, that was fast. Thanks for the replies.

My intention was originally to disable caching because I thought the
issue of how fast it could serve cached content wasn't as interesting as
how fast it could do uncached content.  I'd include a warning in the
text that actual implementations would be considerably faster due to the
presence of the cache, and possibly use memcached after the last run to
give comparison numbers.

I was going to run using 2.6.0_with-rails, since the folks I'm writing
for really get queasy around anything with a whiff of "beta" around it.
Deactivating the sidebars shouldn't be that much of a problem.

Thanks again,
	Sam
6451ee8093c9cedc94f6c813b4dde2c5?d=identicon&s=25 Kevin Ballard (Guest)
on 2006-04-12 05:39
(Received via mailing list)
2.6.0? eek, that's ooooold. It's also using Rails 1.0 - 1.1 would
probably be a lot more relevant for you.
04d072ab8843cfd3d1714faf3a2a0fb2?d=identicon&s=25 mathew (Guest)
on 2006-04-12 20:04
(Received via mailing list)
Kevin Ballard wrote:
> 2.6.0? eek, that's ooooold.

9 days old, to be precise, according to
http://rubyforge.org/projects/typo/

It's also the most recent release. If the developers didn't want people
using code that old, they'd make a newer release, wouldn't they? :-)


mathew
6451ee8093c9cedc94f6c813b4dde2c5?d=identicon&s=25 Kevin Ballard (Guest)
on 2006-04-13 05:08
(Received via mailing list)
On Apr 12, 2006, at 11:03 AM, mathew wrote:

> Kevin Ballard wrote:
>> 2.6.0? eek, that's ooooold.
>
> 9 days old, to be precise, according to http://rubyforge.org/
> projects/typo/

Well, uh, that's an interesting timestamp there. 2.6.0 has been out
for ages.

> It's also the most recent release. If the developers didn't want
> people
> using code that old, they'd make a newer release, wouldn't they? :-)

Speaking as a developer, I really want to get 4.0 out the door.
Current trunk is perfectly usable, we just haven't finished quite
everything we want in 4.0.
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.