4 ms·

Ruby 1.9.2 RC1 is released

50 points by ifesdjeen 16y ago

ifesdjeen 16y ago
NO WAY! http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/3140 http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/3140 Is still not closed in 1.9.2 :(
- ifesdjeen 16y ago
  Gist confirming that issue http://gist.github.com/461930 http://gist.github.com/461930
  - jraines 16y ago
    This is a pretty big bummer. Yehuda Katz on Twitter called it an "epic show-stopping bug" and in the linked thread says he says it will prevent him from recommending 1.9.2.
    - wycats 16y ago
      For reference, the open bug is http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/3140 http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/3140
      - ifesdjeen 16y ago
        Yup, Yehuda, i've stated it in my post... any news on that one? I can see from bug-tracker that it seems to be fixed, but are they going to release it?..
    - wycats 16y ago
      I should also add that it looks as though the bug has been put back into the 1.9.2 milestone and Shyouhei has asked to make it a 1.9.2 blocker. For the moment, I am cautiously optimistic.
spooneybarger 16y ago
duplicate.
- rauljara 16y ago
  Didn't see the original. But even if I had, I imagine I'd be much happier to see a duplicate of this than yet another "original" news story about the iPhone's antenna.
gfodor 16y ago
The $: change seems bizarre.
- ifesdjeen 16y ago
  why so?.. i don't really get your point
  - bradleyland 16y ago
    Because almost everywhere else (other languages, the shell, etc), the current working directory is searched first. This makes it arbitrarily simple to package up a set of scripts in a directory, which can be unpacked and run. That seems bizarre to me as well.
- augustl 16y ago
  Agreed. I wonder if it's cosmetic or if you can't actually require files in the same directory as __FILE__ via the load path. Then again, this will probably only break snippets outside of projects, where lib/ is in the load path.
  - manveru 16y ago
    Use require_relative if you want to require files relative to __FILE__, that way you don't have to worry about $LOAD_PATH and keep your sanity :)
- petercooper 16y ago
  Having . in the load path led to some weird outcomes, especially to beginners. One example is if you write a script called twitter.rb that relies on a library also called 'twitter'. The require would attempt to pull in the current file rather than the library. I got stuck for a good 15 minutes with this one myself a few years ago ;-)
minalecs 16y ago
for those of you using rails 3, are you going to be using this rc candidate, or the ruby 1.9.1-p429. I've ran into a lot of issues using ruby 1.9.1 and are either fixed using ruby 1.8.7 or ruby 1.9.2 .. so just wondering ?
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  I will personally be switching my apps over to Rails 3 and 1.9.2, when they're both ready to go. Might as well do it all at once, you know?
- sabat 16y ago
  The way I understand it, the Rails team recommends not trying to use 1.9.1 with Rails 3 -- too many problems. Recommended versions are 1.8.7 and 1.9.2 pre-releases.
- ichverstehe 16y ago
  1.9.1 isn't supported: http://edgeguides.rubyonrails.org/3_0_release_notes.html#rails-3-requires-at-least-ruby-187 http://edgeguides.rubyonrails.org/3_0_release_notes.html#rai... That said, I am using 1.9.1 in production (non-Rails project) and have had almost no issues so far, apart from a few libraries that had to be updated, but that was mostly minor issues (e.g. #methods returns strings in 1.8 and symbols in 1.9).
- FlemishBeeCycle 16y ago
  I'm using 1.9.1 right now for development, but may make the switch to 1.9.2 - the only issue I've encountered on 1.9.1 with Rails 3 are problems with encodings and multibyte characters.
- bradleyland 16y ago
  Yes, we absolutely will be. We were running 1.9.1 (can't remember which patch level off hand) in a stable config with Rails beta 1, but as the Rails beta progressed, we were unable to move forward with ruby 1.9.1 underneath. This morning, we moved our staging environment to ruby-1.9.1-rc2 and rails-3.0.0.beta4. All our testing since this morning has gone 100% smoothly (thank god!). Every increment in beta before this point has been a nightmare.
tomjen3 16y ago
>Time is reimplemented. There is no longer the year 2038 problem. Great. Hopefully this time all those problems will be fixed well in advance of the deadline.
grandalf 16y ago
I've been using 1.9.1 with sinatra / datamapper for a few months with no problems.

50 points by ifesdjeen 16y ago

NO WAY! http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/3140 http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/3140 Is still not closed in 1.9.2 :(

ifesdjeen 16y ago
Gist confirming that issue http://gist.github.com/461930 http://gist.github.com/461930
- jraines 16y ago
  This is a pretty big bummer. Yehuda Katz on Twitter called it an "epic show-stopping bug" and in the linked thread says he says it will prevent him from recommending 1.9.2.
  - wycats 16y ago
    For reference, the open bug is http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/3140 http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/3140
    - ifesdjeen 16y ago
      Yup, Yehuda, i've stated it in my post... any news on that one? I can see from bug-tracker that it seems to be fixed, but are they going to release it?..
  - wycats 16y ago
    I should also add that it looks as though the bug has been put back into the 1.9.2 milestone and Shyouhei has asked to make it a 1.9.2 blocker. For the moment, I am cautiously optimistic.

spooneybarger 16y ago

duplicate.

rauljara 16y ago
Didn't see the original. But even if I had, I imagine I'd be much happier to see a duplicate of this than yet another "original" news story about the iPhone's antenna.

gfodor 16y ago

The $: change seems bizarre.

ifesdjeen 16y ago
why so?.. i don't really get your point
- bradleyland 16y ago
  Because almost everywhere else (other languages, the shell, etc), the current working directory is searched first. This makes it arbitrarily simple to package up a set of scripts in a directory, which can be unpacked and run. That seems bizarre to me as well.
augustl 16y ago
Agreed. I wonder if it's cosmetic or if you can't actually require files in the same directory as __FILE__ via the load path. Then again, this will probably only break snippets outside of projects, where lib/ is in the load path.
- manveru 16y ago
  Use require_relative if you want to require files relative to __FILE__, that way you don't have to worry about $LOAD_PATH and keep your sanity :)
petercooper 16y ago
Having . in the load path led to some weird outcomes, especially to beginners. One example is if you write a script called twitter.rb that relies on a library also called 'twitter'. The require would attempt to pull in the current file rather than the library. I got stuck for a good 15 minutes with this one myself a few years ago ;-)

minalecs 16y ago

for those of you using rails 3, are you going to be using this rc candidate, or the ruby 1.9.1-p429. I've ran into a lot of issues using ruby 1.9.1 and are either fixed using ruby 1.8.7 or ruby 1.9.2 .. so just wondering ?

steveklabnik 16y ago
I will personally be switching my apps over to Rails 3 and 1.9.2, when they're both ready to go. Might as well do it all at once, you know?
sabat 16y ago
The way I understand it, the Rails team recommends not trying to use 1.9.1 with Rails 3 -- too many problems. Recommended versions are 1.8.7 and 1.9.2 pre-releases.
ichverstehe 16y ago
1.9.1 isn't supported: http://edgeguides.rubyonrails.org/3_0_release_notes.html#rails-3-requires-at-least-ruby-187 http://edgeguides.rubyonrails.org/3_0_release_notes.html#rai... That said, I am using 1.9.1 in production (non-Rails project) and have had almost no issues so far, apart from a few libraries that had to be updated, but that was mostly minor issues (e.g. #methods returns strings in 1.8 and symbols in 1.9).
FlemishBeeCycle 16y ago
I'm using 1.9.1 right now for development, but may make the switch to 1.9.2 - the only issue I've encountered on 1.9.1 with Rails 3 are problems with encodings and multibyte characters.
bradleyland 16y ago
Yes, we absolutely will be. We were running 1.9.1 (can't remember which patch level off hand) in a stable config with Rails beta 1, but as the Rails beta progressed, we were unable to move forward with ruby 1.9.1 underneath. This morning, we moved our staging environment to ruby-1.9.1-rc2 and rails-3.0.0.beta4. All our testing since this morning has gone 100% smoothly (thank god!). Every increment in beta before this point has been a nightmare.

tomjen3 16y ago

>Time is reimplemented. There is no longer the year 2038 problem. Great. Hopefully this time all those problems will be fixed well in advance of the deadline.

grandalf 16y ago

I've been using 1.9.1 with sinatra / datamapper for a few months with no problems.