[#7055] More on VC++ 2005 — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>

Okay. I've got Ruby compiling. I'm attempting to get everything in

17 messages 2006/01/05
[#7058] Re: More on VC++ 2005 — nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@...> 2006/01/06

Hi,

[#7084] mathn: ugly warnings — hadmut@... (Hadmut Danisch)

Hi,

22 messages 2006/01/10
[#7097] Re: mathn: ugly warnings — Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@...> 2006/01/10

Hadmut Danisch wrote:

[#7098] Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/01/10

Daniel Berger wrote:

[#7118] Re: Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings) — mathew <meta@...> 2006/01/12

*Dean Wampler *<deanwampler gmail.com> writes:

[#7226] Fwd: Re: Question about massive API changes — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>

Hello,

23 messages 2006/01/28
[#7228] Re: Question about massive API changes — Caleb Tennis <caleb@...> 2006/01/28

>

Re: Question about massive API changes

From: Caleb Tennis <caleb@...>
Date: 2006-01-28 15:23:28 UTC
List: ruby-core #7230
>
> I'm leaning toward renaming and duplicating the package in the  
> source tree.
> People writing new apps will use the version they want, and old  
> apps will
> continue working.   Your idea of a "mode" is a great one (and  
> probably the
> most elegant), but I'm too lazy to implement something like that --  
> it is
> much more work to implement and keep running over the long haul  
> than simply
> keeping two branches in-tree, under different package names.
>

True, but I'll venture a guess that very few apps are going to  
continue running in Ruby 1.9 without some modification anyway.  I'm  
sure there will be a compatibility library set released for people  
who install 2.0 and want to run 1.8 programs under it cleanly (for  
1.6->1.8 I think that was shim-ruby), so you could handle that  
instance there.

Caleb 

In This Thread