From owner-freebsd-ruby@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 2 05:00:00 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ruby@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF6DF106566B; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 05:00:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from swills@freebsd.org) Received: from mouf.net (mouf.net [IPv6:2607:fc50:0:4400:216:3eff:fe69:33b2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 943C78FC16; Sat, 2 Jun 2012 05:00:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [10.0.1.2] (cpe-024-162-230-236.nc.res.rr.com [24.162.230.236]) (authenticated bits=0) by mouf.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q524xwuO025929 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NOT); Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:59:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from swills@freebsd.org) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: Steve Wills In-Reply-To: <20120601193059.af9201da.stas@FreeBSD.org> Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2012 00:59:58 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <05EF24D9-8D8E-4A50-9F33-8580656AD402@freebsd.org> References: <4FC96D45.8080904@FreeBSD.org> <20120601193059.af9201da.stas@FreeBSD.org> To: Stanislav Sedov X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (mouf.net [204.109.58.86]); Sat, 02 Jun 2012 01:00:00 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.97.2 at mouf.net X-Virus-Status: Clean Cc: ports@freebsd.org, ruby@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Ruby 1.9 as default X-BeenThere: freebsd-ruby@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD-specific Ruby discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Jun 2012 05:00:01 -0000 On Jun 1, 2012, at 10:30 PM, Stanislav Sedov wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 21:32:53 -0400 > Steve Wills mentioned: >=20 >> Hi All, >>=20 >> I think we should try to make Ruby 1.9 the default Ruby again and = would >> like to see it done before 9.1 is released. I've submitted a patch = which >> does this and requested and exp-run from portmgr. >>=20 >> I would like to get feedback on this idea. If you have experience = with >> Ruby 1.9 as default, good or bad, please speak up. You can test this = by >> setting RUBY_DEFAULT_VER=3D1.9 in /etc/make.conf or editing = Mk/bsd.ruby.mk >> and setting the same variable there. >>=20 >=20 > I'm not sure it's a good idea. > Ruby 1.9 still has some nasty bugs on FreeBSD, related to the threads = and > fork. That is fork in ruby 1.9 hangs sometimes... Could you give me some more info on this? If I can reproduce it perhaps = I can track it down and solve it. > OTOH, I've been running ruby 1.9 as default on both of my desktops and = have > not seen major problems except this one. Still, it'd be nice for = someone > to fix it first (I remember there were a lot of eager commiters at the = time > I gave up my commit bit). >=20 > The main question is whether the switch to 1.9 will be beneficial for = our > users. Apart from some libraries targeting 1.9 exclusivly now, most = of of > them still work with 1.8 and there're still some that work with 1.8 = only. > Given that most of the ports users mostly care for 3rd party = applications > to work, I'm not sure if the switch to 1.9 will be a win for them... Isn't 1.9 a bit faster than 1.8? And 1.8 doesn't build with clang while = 1.9 does, so we'll at least want to switch it before 10.0 comes out, = IMHO. Also, 1.9 has been the default version from ruby-lang.org for a = long time and the community is making good progress towards moving to = 1.9 over all. I think most things work with 1.9 now, but I could be = wrong. Are there specific apps that you are thinking of that don't work = with 1.9? 1.9 definitely seems to pass all the tests that 1.8 passes and = more. As far as what users of ports want, the point of this mail was to get = them to speak up and voice their opinions. :) BTW, do you use 1.8 or 1.9? Actually, I'm betting you use Rubinius now = that I think about it, no? Steve