Yeap, great idea. OS X 10.9 ships with ruby 2.0 as the system version already! http://i.imgur.com/RHBRnmD.png
On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 20:19 +0900, Akinori MUSHA wrote: > Great! It's fantastic to see ruby 1.8 finally go. > > Now, why don't we make Ruby 2.0 the default version instead of 1.9? > > Ruby 2.0 is highly (upper) compatible with 1.9 and there should be no > reason to adopt Ruby 1.9.3 by now. Ruby 1.9 is unlikely to have any > more build/platform related change that would expand supported > platforms, architectures or compilers, so I think we should adopt Ruby > 2.0 now that FreeBSD 10 is soon to be shipped with a new compiler and > toolchain that are rapidly evolving. > > What do you guys think? Is there any essential package that does not > run on Ruby 2.0, in which case I could help? > > -- > Akinori MUSHA / https://akinori.org/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
