Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Review request: Ruby 2.0 removal news item
Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2016 08:21:26
Message-Id: 77d34966-6650-3c3c-dbf3-304958699a2e@gentoo.org
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Review request: Ruby 2.0 removal news item by Hans de Graaff
1 On 12/03/2016 11:51 PM, Hans de Graaff wrote:
2 > Title: Ruby 2.0 removal; Ruby 2.1 default
3 > Author: Hans de Graaff <graaff@g.o>
4 > Content-Type: text/plain
5 > Posted: 2016-12-04
6 > Revision: 1
7 > News-Item-Format: 1.0
8 > Display-If-Installed: <dev-lang/ruby-2.1
9 >
10 > Ruby MRI 2.0 has been retired by upstream in February 2016.[1]
11 > We remove Ruby MRI 2.0 support from the tree now. Ruby MRI 2.1 remains
12 > activated in base profile's RUBY_TARGETS variable by default.
13 >
14 > If your currently eselected Ruby interpreter is ruby20, our
15 > recommendation is to change it to ruby21. At the moment Ruby MRI 2.1
16 > delivers the best possible support of all Ruby interpreters in tree.
17 >
18 > Check the current setting via:
19 >
20 > eselect ruby show
21 >
22 > Change the current setting to Ruby MRI 2.1 via:
23 >
24 > eselect ruby set ruby21
25 >
26 > [1] https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2016/02/24/support-plan-of-ruby-2
27 > -0-0-and-2-1/
28 >
29
30 1. Do users need to know about MRI? I had to search the Web to figure
31 out that it's referring to Matz's Ruby Interpreter (or CRuby), which is
32 the reference implementation. This information (if important) may be
33 useful to include, like "Ruby MRI (Matz's Ruby Interpreter) 2.1 ...".
34
35 2. Grammar and tone seems a little off. Here's my attempt at a rewrite,
36 if you don't mind:
37
38 ~~~
39
40 Ruby MRI (Matz's Ruby Interpreter) 2.0 was retired by upstream in
41 February 2016. [1] Following this, Ruby MRI 2.0 support will be removed
42 from Gentoo in favor of Ruby MRI 2.1. We recommend updating to the
43 'ruby21' target as soon as possible.
44
45 [insert eselect guide here]
46
47 ~~~
48
49 I wrote my edit trying to stay close to the original writing style. I
50 hope it's satisfactory.
51
52 The eselect part reads well. We could remove the "MRI" part, but as a
53 non-Rubyist I don't feel qualified to determine whether it's important
54 or not.
55
56 I felt that the base profile variable mention and the bit about MRI
57 being the best interpreter were better left out, but it also doesn't
58 actively hurt it.
59
60 Someone more experienced in news-writing should clarify that. Overall I
61 thought it was a good initial draft.
62 --
63 Daniel Campbell - Gentoo Developer
64 OpenPGP Key: 0x1EA055D6 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net
65 fpr: AE03 9064 AE00 053C 270C 1DE4 6F7A 9091 1EA0 55D6

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Review request: Ruby 2.0 removal news item Hans de Graaff <graaff@g.o>