On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Ola Bini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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
HEH! Nice -Tom -- Blog: http://www.bloglines.com/blog/ThomasEEnebo Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] , [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
