On 2014-09-23 20.14.48 +0200, Landry Breuil wrote:
> How "used" is 1.9 compared to 2.0 and 2.1, within openbsd users ?
My day job is writing Ruby (on Rails) so I can tell you that: whatever
the latest is. Anything else is simply not an option for me.
-Mike
Jeremy Evans, 23 Sep 2014 11:26:
> I'm not sure how much ruby 1.8 and 1.9 are used compared to 2.0 and 2.1, in
> terms of other OpenBSD users.
(me coming from python) maybe it is not about the
number of users per se, but which version the majority
of the most popular libraries/programs target. he
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Landry Breuil
wrote:
> > This could be extended to ruby 1.9 as well if you want. Thoughts?
>
> How far is 1.9 from EOL upstream ? How "used" is 1.9 compared to 2.0 and
> 2.1, within openbsd users ? I suppose besides specific cases, everyone
> uses the default ve
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 10:45:27AM -0700, Jeremy Evans wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Marc Espie wrote:
>
> > Number of ports is important as well, unfortunately. There is a huge chunk
> > of time spent waiting for dependencies to install and for the disk to
> > unpack/repack stuff.
>
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:31 AM, Marc Espie wrote:
> Number of ports is important as well, unfortunately. There is a huge chunk
> of time spent waiting for dependencies to install and for the disk to
> unpack/repack stuff.
>
> Death of a thousand cuts.
>
The simple solution here is to just buil
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 04:15:22PM -0700, Jeremy Evans wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 08:38:44PM +0200, Landry Breuil wrote:
> > > On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 02:11:04PM -0700, Jeremy Evans wrote:
> > > > This makes ruby 2.1 the default ruby
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Marc Espie wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 08:38:44PM +0200, Landry Breuil wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 02:11:04PM -0700, Jeremy Evans wrote:
> > > This makes ruby 2.1 the default ruby version. Now that ruby 2.1.3 has
> > > been released, it makes sense t
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 08:38:44PM +0200, Landry Breuil wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 02:11:04PM -0700, Jeremy Evans wrote:
> > This makes ruby 2.1 the default ruby version. Now that ruby 2.1.3 has
> > been released, it makes sense to switch the default from ruby 2.0 to
> > ruby 2.1.
>
> Think
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 02:11:04PM -0700, Jeremy Evans wrote:
> This makes ruby 2.1 the default ruby version. Now that ruby 2.1.3 has
> been released, it makes sense to switch the default from ruby 2.0 to
> ruby 2.1.
Thinking out loud, but is there still a point in having 4 different
versions in
