[typo] 1.1 or 1.0, choose now!

Koen Van der Auwera kvanderauwera at gmail.com
Thu Mar 30 02:08:30 EST 2006


+1 for 1.1 :)

On 3/30/06, Steven Smith <ssmith at fiveruns.com> wrote:
>
> I go with the requirement for 1.1 which is where most of the hosting
> companies appear to be moving to rapidly.
>
> On Mar 30, 2006, at 12:11 AM, Piers Cawley wrote:
>
> > After further testing of the rails_1_1 branch, it seems I was rather
> > to sanguine about how well it works with Rails 1.0. Essentially, it
> > doesn't, I don't know why, and working out why is going to be HARD.
> >
> > So, we're faced with a choice: we can move the typo trunk to a point
> > where we *require* Rails 1.1, or we can wait until we come up with a
> > fix for 1.0.
> >
> > My gut feeling (especially given the speed with which the hosting
> > companies have made the switch to 1.1) is that we should just move
> > over to requiring 1.1 as soon as possible; there's lots of goodies in
> > there that I want to use for typo; we'd probably be going to 1.1 only
> > pretty swiftly any way.
> >
> > If we do this, we'd tag revision 971 (the current trunk HEAD) as
> > 'good_with_1_0' or something and just move on.
> >
> > What does the panel think?
> >
> > --
> > Piers Cawley <pdcawley at bofh.org.uk>
> > http://www.bofh.org.uk/
> > _______________________________________________
> > Typo-list mailing list
> > Typo-list at rubyforge.org
> > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Typo-list mailing list
> Typo-list at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/typo-list
>



--
Koen.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/typo-list/attachments/20060330/5ef3312f/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the Typo-list mailing list