Robin, Sure - lets not hijack Jon's thread - but pushing operating system vendors to upgrade through the requirement of softwares… Lets leave it at that (and, I have considered being the Ruby package maintainer and pushing such things on that front)
- Lee On 4 June 2010 13:16, Robin Bowes <[email protected]> wrote: > On 04/06/10 11:39, Lee Hambley wrote: > > Out dated distributions aside… there is a catalog of serious problems in > > 1.8.6 from string handling, through thread scheduling, race conditions > > on trivial file system operations and more - it is effectively obsolete; > > and given it's age, and the catalog of problems I certainly won't go out > > of my way to support it here. In this instance the problem isn't related > > - but I've closed more than one ticket as there's been no evidence that > > they present on modern (even old) versions of Ruby. We're 3 months away > > from Matz starting work on Ruby 2.0 ( I spoke with him just last week ) > > – with him being most disappointed that people have failed completely to > > move towards 1.9… as it's something I believe very strongly in not using > > old software. (And, need I remind you of the last time Debian, for > > example http://www.ubuntu.com/usn/usn-612-1 - They revised their update > > policy in that are rather quickly following that discovery. > > > > Ruby 1.8.7 has been available for about 2 years and one week, take a > > look at the announcement > > here… > http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2008/05/31/ruby-1-8-7-has-been-released/ > > - two years and nobody updated a package for some operating systems yet… > > that is simply unreasonable. > > > > And Robin, I know we don't often agree - I'm not looking for a fight - > > and in fact I work in a rails shop where for a variety of reasons we > > still use 1.8.7 - with a great many back-ported and custom patches for > > one thing and another - with this in mind I feel that I am qualified to > > speak about managing software versions in an environment where such > > things are critical > > Lee, > > I don't disagree with any of your reasons for preferring later versions > of software - "HAMBLEY & BOWES IN AGREEMENT SHOCKER!!". > > However the fact remains that, for whatever reasons, commonly-used > popular enterprise linux distributions still have ruby 1.8.6, with no > easy route to deploy a later version. Hell, the recently-released Fedora > 13 still only has 1.8.6, and I seem to recall that RHEL6 beta also does. > So, there is no easy way (that I know of) to get ruby 1.8.7 (or above) > on RH-flavour platforms. > > Now, you may find that unreasonable but the fact remains that 1.8.6 is > what a lot of folk have to work with - a situation that is not likely to > change for quite some time. > > R. > > -- > * You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Capistrano" group. > * To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > * To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<capistrano%[email protected]>For > more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano?hl=en > -- * You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Capistrano" group. * To post to this group, send email to [email protected] * To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/capistrano?hl=en
