3 ms·
Ruby 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
by mileszs 16y ago
Ruby 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.
- nanairo 16y agoPretty much agree completely. To add a few more details, it wasn't until 1.9.1 was out that "normal" people really started to look at it. There were quite a few changes that took time to be properly absorbed by the community (e.g. Internationalisation, see James Edwards Gray's blog). Most gems also only started then to consider 1.9.1 as one of their targets, but it took some time. And anyway Rails was moving even more slowly. Personally I've been using 1.9.1 for about a year now, but I don't make a living out of Ruby (or Rails) so it's understandable that people who need more reliable support waited a bit.