Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
pat eyler wrote:
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- We need to consider what version number we might want for
JRuby.next...1.2? 2.0? Tom suggested 3.0 since it wouldn't confuse
people
about JRuby 2.0/Ruby 2.0. I think it's open for discussion.
I'd go with 1.2 ... if you skip 2.0 to avoid name confusion, what
will you do
when Ruby 2.0 does hit the streets and you want to start working towards
feature compatiblity with it?
JRuby's likely to always have 1.8, 1.9 and eventually 2.0 features all
in the same codebase, since it's not especially hard to do so. So I
don't think we'll be tracking Ruby's version numbers in any way, but
we may want to avoid the 2.0 moniker. I dunno, it's a toss up. Some of
the work planned for this next cycle is going to be pretty
invasive...and there may be backward-incompatible fixes to Java
integration. That says 2.0 to me.
We can always do a repeated sequence out of the current releases. So
that means the next major release should be 2.1 (1.0 + 1.1), and the one
after that 3.2.
That way we will get really lovely and high version numbers quickly,
while avoiding the sticky 2.0
--
Ola Bini (http://ola-bini.blogspot.com)
JRuby Core Developer
Developer, ThoughtWorks Studios (http://studios.thoughtworks.com)
Practical JRuby on Rails (http://apress.com/book/view/9781590598818)
"Yields falsehood when quined" yields falsehood when quined.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, please visit:
http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
