On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.ro...@gmail.com> wrote: > Em 08-06-2011 21:39, Joseph Athman escreveu: > > With JRuby all releases are stable, there's no such thing as an unstable > release (though I suppose you could consider release candidates as > unstable). If you wanted to see unstable/unreleased code you would just > need to follow the head of the codebase on github. In my experience the > head is very stable as well. JRuby currently uses a three part version e.g. > 1.6.2. The 2 is a minor version which seems to generally include bugfixes > or performance regressions. The 6 is the major version which seems to > normally include more substantial changes (for example I'm guessing > something like all the InvokeDynamic work that Charlie is doing would only > show up in a major version release). As for the 1, I'm not sure if that > will ever bump up? Possibly once JRuby enables peace in the middle east? > Maybe the core maintainers have an idea of what would be needed for JRuby > to turn 2.
That is a pretty accurate explanation. We have put in features in minor point releases, but they are new features which will not impact anyone unless they try them (like I think we added ant/rake integration after 1.5.0 during 1.5.x). > I guess this will happen when MRI Ruby becomes 2... JRuby 2 (or n of 7) will most likely involve a major+ feature and also we will have a little bit of breakage with regards to backwards compatibility (<--- this means removing deprecation here and some refactorings of internal code). We work so hard on making sure things keep working from version to version that the next major version will definitely have a nice round of clean-up in the code base. A JRuby version 2 is like to be confusing. We may not pick 2 since it may confuse all the folks who think we are tracking MRI version numbers. Likewise 1.8 and 1.9 will probably be avoided for the same reason. We have been talking about this subject for years now and have not totally decided, but I think that is the current consensus. -Tom > > > Joe > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 12:39 AM, Atsushi SAKAI <sak...@jp.fujitsu.com> > wrote: >> >> Hello.I am newbies on this mailing list. >> >> I have a question about JRuby versioning method. >> Which versioning method is taken on JRuby? >> In my understanding, method 2) is current versiong method on JRuby. >> >> 1)As you know, Linux and Xen has a versioning like w.x.y.z or x.y.z >> and .z means stable version. >> So x.y and .z meaning is different in these packages. >> In these packages, stable tree and unstable tree maintained >> with parallel >> >> 2)And for libvirt, versioning method is different. >> the versioning is composed of x.y.z. and .z means minor version up >> and x.y means major version up. >> In this package, code tree is maintained as one tree, >> not two or more. >> >> Thanks >> Atsushi SAKAI > > -- blog: http://blog.enebo.com twitter: tom_enebo mail: tom.en...@gmail.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, please visit: http://xircles.codehaus.org/manage_email
