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
> >
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Ola Bini wrote:
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 sti
Ola Bini wrote:
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
Nice...so in a few y
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 th
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.
Ola Bini wrote:
Good goals. I still believe that focused performance work on Rails is
still very much needed.
Absolutely...and with the release behind us (and 1.1.1 probably going
out the door in a week or two) we can really start to do that.
- Charlie
--
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Dean Wampler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think we should follow Java's example and use both "1.X" and "X"
> simultaneously. We should also use a random generator to arbitrarily insert
> one or the other in all documentation, emails, etc.
Mixing Roman and Arabic
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:22 AM, pat eyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
> peopl
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.
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Quickly before I get on my flight...let me know what y'all think of this.
- 1.1.x development will proceed on trunk for a while, so 1.1.1 will
include everything that's been fixed on trunk. Barring major rework or
rewrites, I think there's a lot of fixes we can mak
10 matches
Mail list logo
