Depends, why not have both 2.1.2 and 2.2.1 in there so that you can work on what is going to be coming with 2.2.x? The final version should be coming pretty soon, and the more eyes looking at the current release candidate the better.
On Nov 16, 11:10 am, RichardOnRails <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks, Fred, for that clarification. > > And you are right about gems.rubyonrails.org. "gem sources" reports > the I also havehttp://gems.rubyforge.org. > > What do you recommend a senior app developer but a mid-level Rubyist > and junior Railist should have? > > Thanks, again, > Richard > > On Nov 16, 11:46 am, Frederick Cheung <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > On Nov 16, 4:00 pm, RichardOnRails > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I recently saw some blogs suggesting the 2.2.0 might not yet be the > > > "released version", though I doubt that because IMHO the gem > > > installer wouldn't have included it among the available Rails > > > versions. Maybe the articles I saw were outdated. True? > > > 2.2.0 is 2.2RC1 (and 2.2.1 is the second release candidate) so those > > blogs are accurate in that neither of those versions are the final > > version of 2.2. You would only get those versions if you had added > > gems.rubyonrails.org to your list of gem sources. > > > Fred --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" 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/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
