Here's some relevant articles, given that we all need to get onto 1.9.3 ASAP:

Sam Ruby's "What to expect in 1.9.x" slideshow: http://slideshow.rubyforge.org/ruby19.html#1

Airbnb's migration story: http://nerds.airbnb.com/upgrading-from-ree-187-to-ruby-193

Another migration story: http://www.darkridge.com/~jpr5/2012/10/03/ruby-1.8.7-1.9.3-m...

I wonder if that means OS X's ruby will be upgraded finally.

Maybe, but I can guarantee it won't get done until 10.9 comes out. EDIT: If you really want to see the level of effort for them to do this go buy OS X Server from the app store and dig around for ruby files ;-)

I wouldn't be surprised if thats the case, but its not like 1.8.x being sunset was a surprise to anyone - 1.9 is 4+ years old. Hopefully someone has been working on it up to now

> 1.9 is 4+ years old

1.9.1->1.9.2 had breaking changes (most obviously require_relative) and 1.9.2 had performance issues in requiring files. I haven't run into any issues with Ruby 1.9.3, but it's only 1.5 years old, and even 1.9.3 was not 100% backwards compatible.

I understand that this all seems like eternity if you are actively developing a Ruby app, but for everything that is in maintenance mode, 1.8.7 has been a very sane choice until now. I had certainly planned to use it another couple years if possible. :/

If not, maybe they can skip straight to 2.0.

Order of installation on new macs: Quicksilver. Brew. Tmux. JewelryBox.

Lazy package maintainers have created the perfect atmosphere for a project like rvm to be an essential part of life.

Wow I had not heard of JewelryBox. I typically lean towards pure CLI, but I'm seriously considering installing this.

I lean pure CLI as well except on macs, which I use purely to try and maintain compatibility with as many Unixy OS variants as I can.

I'm sure it will go quickly into the night, just like Python 2.7 and Perl 5.14.

Perl 5.14 is still supported at least until 5.18 is released (due very soon!). Also it will receive any critical security patches for another year after this.

Eh? Why the downvote? Above is correct - http://perldoc.perl.org/perlpolicy.html#MAINTENANCE-AND-SUPP...

Many thanks for all the subsequent up votes on this. Not sure my answer really deserves it but thanks :)

For those that don't know... Perl development is on a fixed annual release schedule. Every April the release candidate for next version of Perl arrives (no not delivered by the Easter Bunny!).

So 5.18-RC0 is due next month and if all goes well then 5.18 final will be released the following month (at which point 5.14 will be moved to its final year of security only patches).

ref: https://metacpan.org/module/CORION/perl-5.17.10/Porting/rele...

I don't believe Python 2.7 is deprecated.

whoosh

Hardly. I made the comment because it does not represent the same situation.

Ruby 1.8.7 will no longer receive security patches, which is a big issue and is likely to motivate any half-decent organization to migrate.

Python 2.7 and Perl 5.14 will continue to see use because both receive security patches, are still maintained, and in the Python case you also have to worry about (well, less so now) whether the libraries you need have moved to 3.x as well.

I'm aware that the GP was trying to be witty, but it doesn't really stick.

> Python 2.7 wasn't supposed to exist. Python 2.6 was supposed to be EOL for the 2.x series

This claim is highly dubious, I never heard of it and just to be sure checked the log for PEP 361 "Python 2.6 release schedule". 2.7 has been mentioned since the first revision of the PEP, that the 2.6 release would be synchronized with 3.0 was added early on, I can not find any suggestion that 2.6 would be the 2.x EOL anywhere.

It does specify that some features would be/were backported from 3.0 to 2.6 to help transition, but that's it.

Do you have any source for your claim that 2.6 was supposed to be the 2.x EOL?

There won't be a 1.8.8, it was already discussed and shot down. 1.8.7 is already a transitional release.

Also, given the adoption of 1.9 in the Ruby world, there is also no point.

Unless you run RHEL.

There are now packages available[] for 1.9 even for users of RHEL.

The real issue there is that the packaging of gems are remade from scratch, so any gems anyone has been forced to package themselves will have to be repackaged.

[] Well, I don't know if they have been released in a final form yet but at least there are early versions available.

Thats where the "Enterprise" comes from.

Thanks for explaining my comment to me (?)

thank god! hopefully mac os x will update the included ruby from 1.8.7