From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Original-To: poffice@blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp Delivered-To: poffice@blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp Received: from kankan.nagaokaut.ac.jp (kankan.nagaokaut.ac.jp [133.44.2.24]) by blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id E80A619E0040 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:13:12 +0900 (JST) Received: from voscc.nagaokaut.ac.jp (voscc.nagaokaut.ac.jp [133.44.1.100]) by kankan.nagaokaut.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C56CB5D85C for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:45:44 +0900 (JST) Received: from neon.ruby-lang.org (neon.ruby-lang.org [221.186.184.75]) by voscc.nagaokaut.ac.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA78B18CC7B8 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:45:44 +0900 (JST) Received: from [221.186.184.76] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by neon.ruby-lang.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2874312056E; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:45:43 +0900 (JST) X-Original-To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org Delivered-To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org Received: from dcvr.yhbt.net (dcvr.yhbt.net [64.71.152.64]) by neon.ruby-lang.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E602120446 for ; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 13:45:38 +0900 (JST) Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DF971F6BC; Sun, 27 Dec 2015 04:45:37 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2015 04:45:37 +0000 From: Eric Wong To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org Message-ID: <20151227044537.GA31924@dcvr.yhbt.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-ML-Name: ruby-core X-Mail-Count: 72503 Subject: [ruby-core:72503] Ruby 3.0 in 2017? X-BeenThere: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list Reply-To: Ruby developers List-Id: Ruby developers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ruby-core-bounces@ruby-lang.org Sender: "ruby-core" It looks like we'll be working on Ruby 2.4 this year for a Christmas 2016 release. So I guess we won't have Ruby 3.0 won't landing until Christmas 2017 at earliest? For what it's worth, I do not look forward to ever having a backwards-incompatible flag day for 3.0. Too much has been done since 1.9 came out to break compatibility. >From a non-Pythonist point-of-view, Python's 2-to-3 transition looks like a complete mess. As a long-time (and still daily!) Perl 5 user; I'm happy to see continued improvements to 5 and don't care at all for 6, yet.