11 ms·
Ruby 1.9.2 Released
- chuhnk 16y agoAn eagerly anticipated release. I'm really looking forward to utilizing the fibers associated with native kernel threads.
- steveklabnik 16y agoNow everyone can actually move to Ruby 1.9! This is really exciting.
- DrJokepu 16y agoNot until distros start shipping it. I don't know about Ubuntu because I don't really use it, but Fedora's still shipping with 1.8 and Fedora 14 will only be released in November.
- steveklabnik 16y agoIf it was any software but Ruby, I'd agree with you, but Rubyists tend to be into the cutting edge, as well as not using package managers to install Ruby. The conventional wisdom (at least for Ubuntu) has been "don't use apt, compile your own" for a while now. Or even better, use rvm.
- sigzero 16y agoI would speculate that anyone doing any real work in Ruby doesn't wait on the distro to provide it. I don't do that with Perl, I compile my own. I would imagine Rubyists are the same way too. Anyway, kudos to the Ruby folks.
- telemachos 16y agoOff-topic, but have you tried Gugod's Perlbrew for handling multiple Perl interpreters? It's like rvm, but for Perl. I've been using it for a bit with great results. http://github.com/gugod/App-perlbrew http://github.com/gugod/App-perlbrew
- sigzero 16y agoI have heard of it. Haven't got any "tuits" to check it out at the moment. One of those "back of the brain" things though.
- Pistos2 16y agoWhen I tried it (earlier this year), it wasn't quite like RVM. RVM is very versatile, powerful and polished. Perlbrew is getting there, but seems good only for particular limited ranges of use. Things I got used to with RVM weren't ready yet in Perlbrew. Various Perl versions wouldn't compile for me successfully. You can also compare the Synopsis of Perlbrew with the range of rvm commands and switches to get a feel for how much is missing in Perlbrew. I really wish Perlbrew gave me a good out-of-the-box experience, because it would be very handy for me, but that wasn't the case.
- gregwebs 16y agoAt this point as a Rubyist the only thing you really need is rubygems (of any version) on your computer. gem install rvm and then rvm install RUBY_VERSION.
- Vitaly 16y agoindeed. I stopped worrying about native system ruby version since moving to rvm. it is almost the only way to keep you sane while dealing with distros and ruby versions.
- SkyMarshal 16y agoWhat's the best way to get rubygems with no other ruby packages on my system? Package manager, or dl and compile it? My package manager wants to install ruby, irb, and a couple other 1.9.1 packages with it that I'm not sure I'll want after using rvm to install the 1.9.2 versions.
- MartinMond 16y agobash < <( curl http://rvm.beginrescueend.com/releases/rvm-install-head ) See http://rvm.beginrescueend.com/rvm/install/ http://rvm.beginrescueend.com/rvm/install/
- SkyMarshal 16y agoThanks!
- bradleyland 16y agoGo with whatever your distro provides as a default. RVM completely segregates your RVM Rubies from your system Ruby, so you're far better off with a "common" system Ruby install than you are trying to hack together a stripped down Ruby install. The package maintainers already know the platform specific idiosyncrasies you'll need to work around, so might as well leverage that. You may also encounter other software that expects a certain system Ruby environment on your system, so there's that too.
- cmelbye 16y agoPeople still use Ruby packages from their Linux distribution? I've always compiled, especially since Debian cripples RubyGems. Either that or I use ArchLinux, which uses the actual stable version of the software.
- thibaut_barrere 16y agoThe most popular way (and easy, really) has always been to curl and compile yourself. And these days RVM is growing up on production servers too, because it's really convenient if you have many apps each with the exact version it requires.
- dschobel 16y agoWhy didn't people move with 1.9.1 ?
- steveklabnik 16y agoI can't speak for _everybody_, but I'm waiting to upgrade all of my sites that use Rails until Ruby 1.9.2 and Rails 3 both came out. I don't want to do two large updates, I'd rather do them together, and Rails 3 didn't support Ruby 1.9.1. Also, there's just general conservatism; Ruby 1.9 was originally Ruby 2.0, but got renamed to 1.9 for reasons I don't quite remember/understand. 1.8 -> 1.9 is a much larger transition than the scheme would imply, roughly equivalent to the Python 2.6 -> 3 change, and we've seen how well that's gone. As time progresses, more people switch over, and each new release makes people decide it's finally time to re-write their scripts.
- ichverstehe 16y agoI have been running 1.9.1 in production for months and used dozens of libraries. Most issues were easily fixed. The move isn't really that difficult.
- steveklabnik 16y agoIt's not difficult... but people still complain. I moved Shoes over to 1.9.1, I agree, it's not bad. Don't underestimate laziness.
- catch23 16y agosame reason lots of companies are still stuck in java 5 land...
- kjetil 16y agoJava 5? Heh. Try all the apps still on 1.3 and 1.4.
- mileszs 16y agoRuby 1.9.1 was never considered stable by many Rubyists. (Find '1.9.1' in this Yehuda Katz interview: http://www.drdobbs.com/blog/archives/2010/06/preparing_for_r.html;jsessionid=PDKUHVLYW4VDTQE1GHPSKH4ATMY32JVN?print=true http://www.drdobbs.com/blog/archives/2010/06/preparing_for_r... ... which was just the first reference I found.) Mr. Katz advised in multiple interviews/tweets (if I recall correctly) to wait for 1.9.2, and the community tends to listen. Rails 3 was tested against 1.9.2, not 1.9.1; this provided yet another reason to wait.
- vegai 16y agoSo they fixed the encoding problems?
- steveklabnik 16y agoDefine 'encoding problems'. ;)
- samratjp 16y agoJIT for some sweet Rails 3 love!
- sabat 16y agoLOL, at first I thought you meant there was a new JIT compiler with 1.9.2 -- but you're right, this is good timing for those of us excited about Rails 3.
- earcar 16y agoIt's already on rvm, http://rvm.beginrescueend.com http://rvm.beginrescueend.com
- telemachos 16y agoYou may need to do this: rvm update --head && rvm reload && rvm install 1.9.2
- Throlkim 16y agoThanks for that - you posted quicker than I could find the instructions on the documentation :D
- earcar 16y ago`--head` is not necessary since it's included in the latest release (0.1.46)
- telemachos 16y agoFair enough (and thanks). I tend to run `--head` reflexively.
- mark_l_watson 16y agoQuestion: I just installed using: rvm install 1.9.2-head and it used: http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/branches/ruby_1_9_2 http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/branches/ruby_1_9_2 And: $ ruby -v ruby 1.9.2p0 (2010-08-18 revision 29034) [x86_64-darwin10.4.0] So I am good to go, right?
- telemachos 16y agoI get this from `ruby -v` (having installed 1.9.2): ruby 1.9.2p0 (2010-08-18 revision 29036) [x86_64-darwin10.4.0] So, the revision number is very slightly different. Hard to say in this case whether that is worth uninstalling the one and installing the other. Probably not, but hard to say exactly.
- nanairo 16y agoWith 1.9.2 coming out, and Rails 3 too, the last pieces are in place for the Ruby community to move to Ruby1.9 for good. The last year we had a lot of "choice" due to the transitional period we were in. Hopefully by the end of the year that will be history. Hurray! :)
- jarin 16y agoI finally made the leap and installed RVM and 1.9.1/1.9.2. It is done.
- msmith 16y agoThis is the first version where conformance to RubySpec was made a high priority. It now passes over 99% of the spec. This is great news for the community because it makes it much easier for alternative ruby implementations to remain compatible.
- trevorturk 16y ago..waits patiently for Heroku to support it ;)
- alttab 16y agoWith 1.9.2, the I18n internationalization module does not update available locales after loading more languages in the backend module. In my app we do this as a plug-in and since it can be done in run-time there may need to be some extra steps taken. I doubt this matters for 99% of the people here but just thought I'd give you a heads up if any of you move to 1.9.2 and use I18n dynamically.
- c00p3r 16y agoencodings, dl, sockets and time improvements - too good to be true! ^_^
- telemachos 16y agoIt's surprising (though not unwelcome) to see that the only distro at the highest level of support ('Supported') is Debian 5.0 (i.e. Lenny). Some irony here: Lenny currently has Ruby 1.8.7 and 1.9.0 (as a distinct package - 1.8.7 is the default Ruby); Squeeze (Debian 6.0) has 1.8.7-p299 as a Ruby default and 1.9.1 for the 1.9 branch. Since Squeeze just froze, it is unlikely to release with 1.9.2 - though they may make an exception. Point being: the only distro that enjoys the fullest level of support has no stable version with 1.9.2. OSX, Windows, FreeBSD, Solaris and Symbian make the next level ('Best Effort'), and all other Linux distros only come in at the third level ('Perhaps'). I respect the developers' frankness, and it's not something I have to worry much about, but the names of the support levels don't scream "use me on a multi-billion dollar project" for corporate folks.
- tenderlove 16y agoWe use Debian for the CI machine. CI failures are taken quite seriously, and we have a person maintaining this CI box. I believe that is why Debian is considered highest. The next level of OS support are core developers that use that OS for work / home, but we don't have CI machines. I think if we had more CI boxes, then more platforms could join the "highest level" support. I know there was a conversation on the Japanese dev list about this, and I can try to dig it up if people are interested.
- regularfry 16y agoWhen you say "we," I presume you mean ruby-core?
- tenderlove 16y agoI am on ruby-core. :-)
- regularfry 16y agoThat's what I thought :-)
- 16y ago
- c00p3r 16y agocannot build working binary with clang sigsegv in ./miniruby on linux/x86_64 =(
- samgranieri 16y agoI didnt have any luck compiling ruby trunk this morning with clang on Snow Leopard.
- ptomato 16y agoThis may help: http://joneslee85.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/howto-compile-ruby-1-9-2-head-with-clang-svn-head-on-mac-os-x-10-6-3/ http://joneslee85.wordpress.com/2010/04/23/howto-compile-rub...
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- regularfry 16y agoThis seems... erm... stupid: > == FAQ :The standard library is installed in /usr/local/lib/ruby/1.9.1 This version number is "library compatibility version". Ruby 1.9.2 is mostly compatible with the 1.9.2, so its library is installed in the directory.
- india 16y agoThis is insane. I have just had to explain 3 people on #ruby-lang why my error log has 1.9.1 in it if I am running purely 1.9.2. This tangentially breaks the principle of least surprise. I can't see any good reason for doing this. This will result in unnecessary head aches during debugging for months to come.
- philwelch 16y agoThat always confused me before, but at least I know it's intentional.
- grandalf 16y agorvm update --head && rvm reload && rvm install 1.9.2 && rvm 1.9.2 --default (sorry for the duplicate)
- xinuc 16y agois it just coincidence that this release was on whyday? http://whyday.org/ http://whyday.org/