[#10193] String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...>

Hi,

41 messages 2007/02/05
[#10197] Re: String.ord — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/02/06

Hi,

[#10198] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10199] Re: String.ord — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2007/02/06

David Flanagan wrote:

[#10200] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Daniel Berger wrote:

[#10208] Re: String.ord — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/02/06

On 2/6/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:

[#10213] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#10215] Re: String.ord — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/02/06

On 2/6/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:

[#10216] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/07

Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#10288] Socket library should support abstract unix sockets — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #8597, was opened at 2007-02-13 16:10

12 messages 2007/02/13

[#10321] File.basename fails on Windows root paths — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #8676, was opened at 2007-02-15 10:09

11 messages 2007/02/15

[#10323] Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...>

Some of the Ruby code used by TextMate makes use of xmlrpc/

31 messages 2007/02/15
[#10324] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...> 2007/02/15

> -----Original Message-----

[#10326] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/15

On Feb 15, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Berger, Daniel wrote:

[#10342] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/16

While I am complaining about xmlrpc, we have another issue. It's

[#10343] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — Alex Young <alex@...> 2007/02/16

James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#10344] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/16

On Feb 16, 2007, at 12:08 PM, Alex Young wrote:

Re: open-uri proxy authentication for 1.8.6

From: "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>
Date: 2007-02-16 03:06:08 UTC
List: ruby-core #10332
At Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:52:51 +0900,
Eric Hodel wrote:
> I'd like to see open-uri backported from trunk to ruby_1_8.  I wasn't
> able to get a tested patch before now, but this will backport just
> open-uri's proxy authentication from trunk.

Given that it is OK by akr@, backport to ruby_1_8 is fine.  For
ruby_1_8_6, let me think for awhile.

> If possible, merging the whole open-uri.rb would be preferred.  As
> Anatol's mail says, it was included wholesale in RubyGems 0.9.2 and
> works fine.
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> > From: "Anatol Pomozov" <anatol.pomozov@gmail.com>
> > Date: February 15, 2007 13:19:08 PST
> > To: rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org
> > Subject: Re: [Rubygems-developers] lib/rubygems/open-uri.rb needs
> > to stay gone
> > List-Id: <rubygems-developers.rubyforge.org>
> >
> > OK. Here is patch that contains proxy authorization changes.
> >
> > But as for me I would just copy open-uri.rb from trunk to 1.8.5
> > branch, because of 2 reasons
> > 1) version from trunk is tested much better (we've used it in
> > rubygems-0.9.2)
> > 2) It does not contained any API changes. Trunk version fixes 2
> > bugs: with proxy authorization and with SSL.
> >
> > Anyway if copying is not possible (but I am still voting for it) I
> > would like that anyone from you try to test this patch. Just apply
> > patch to your current open-uri.rb file and remove open-uri lib from
> > rubygems.
> >
> > I've just tested it. WinXP ruby 1.8.4, rubygems 0.9.2. Works fine.

-- 
                     /
                    /__  __            Akinori.org / MUSHA.org
                   / )  )  ) )  /     FreeBSD.org / Ruby-lang.org
Akinori MUSHA aka / (_ /  ( (__(  @ iDaemons.org / and.or.jp

"Different eyes see different things,
    Different hearts beat on different strings --
       But there are times for you and me when all such things agree"

In This Thread

Prev Next