4 ms·

This is pretty exciting. Might be too early to tell, but it feels like the Ruby versioning recently has been done very right. The switch from 1.8.x to 1.9.x was

This is pretty exciting. Might be too early to tell, but it feels like the Ruby versioning recently has been done very right. The switch from 1.8.x to 1.9.x was slightly painful, but I think 80% of Rubyists have made the jump. I'm hopeful and expecting the switch to 2.0 by 80% of Rubyists in 2013. Compared to the adoption of major version releases by Python/Java/C#/PHP, I think that's something the Ruby core release team can be proud of.

aaronblohowiak 14y ago
1.9 was not supposed to be a wide release, and it contained more breaking changes than 2.0, IIRC.
- jacquesc 14y ago
  I'm not 100% sure on the history, but I believe 1.9.x started as a dev release and then they changed their minds and decided it was a wide release. That initial confusion might be why the community took the time to go from 1.8 to 1.9. I think they've learned from that, as 2.0 looks like a much cleaner/easier transition.
  - stormbrew 14y ago
    On the other hand, it means we've now had point and minor releases that broke everything (1.9, 1.8.7, and I think even one or two of the 1.8.7 patch releases actually backported breaking 1.9 features), while the major release is apparently one where nothing from the prior release should break. I'm not convinced that means they've 'learned their lesson' so much as that they still don't know how to version things. We'll see how 2.1 goes, I guess.
    - Kerrick 14y ago
      Indeed. I hope that ruby itself starts following the semantic versioning [0] that is so popular with ruby developers. Now that they have a "clean slate" with a 2.0.0 release, they could! [0] http://semver.org/ http://semver.org/
steveklabnik 14y ago
Rails 4 will ship with "1.9.3 required, 2.0.0 recommended," so I'm expecting that to drive a lot of adoption.
mattmanser 14y ago
Not sure what C#'s doing in that list. Think you have some outdated ideas about that community, there's not been a significant breaking change forever.

aaronblohowiak 14y ago

1.9 was not supposed to be a wide release, and it contained more breaking changes than 2.0, IIRC.

jacquesc 14y ago
I'm not 100% sure on the history, but I believe 1.9.x started as a dev release and then they changed their minds and decided it was a wide release. That initial confusion might be why the community took the time to go from 1.8 to 1.9. I think they've learned from that, as 2.0 looks like a much cleaner/easier transition.
- stormbrew 14y ago
  On the other hand, it means we've now had point and minor releases that broke everything (1.9, 1.8.7, and I think even one or two of the 1.8.7 patch releases actually backported breaking 1.9 features), while the major release is apparently one where nothing from the prior release should break. I'm not convinced that means they've 'learned their lesson' so much as that they still don't know how to version things. We'll see how 2.1 goes, I guess.
  - Kerrick 14y ago
    Indeed. I hope that ruby itself starts following the semantic versioning [0] that is so popular with ruby developers. Now that they have a "clean slate" with a 2.0.0 release, they could! [0] http://semver.org/ http://semver.org/

steveklabnik 14y ago

Rails 4 will ship with "1.9.3 required, 2.0.0 recommended," so I'm expecting that to drive a lot of adoption.

mattmanser 14y ago

Not sure what C#'s doing in that list. Think you have some outdated ideas about that community, there's not been a significant breaking change forever.