[#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: Ruby 1.8.6 preview2 has been released

From: "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>
Date: 2007-02-26 14:41:22 UTC
List: ruby-core #10428
At Mon, 26 Feb 2007 22:37:37 +0900,
Ryan Waldron wrote:
> Beta versions of rake from 0.7.1.5 on no longer rely on
> fu_check_options (b/c it was always supposed to be internal only):
> 
> http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rake-devel/2006-October/000243.html
> 
> I stumbled over this a few weeks ago.  There will certainly be some
> anguished cries, though, amongst people who haven't upgraded,
> especially if the non-broken version of rake remains in beta when the
> 1.8.6 release goes official.
> 
> On 2/26/07, Daniel Berger <djberg96@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2/24/07, Akinori MUSHA <knu@idaemons.org> wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I am pleased to announce that the second preview of Ruby 1.8.6 has
> > > been released.  The new version of Ruby includes many bug fixes,
> > > feature enhancements and some performance improvements since 1.8.5
> > > while maintaining stability and backward compatibility with the
> > > previous release to a high degree.
> >
> > It looks like you've altered fu_check_options in fileutils.rb, which
> > breaks rake 0.7.1. Be prepared for howls from the rails community.
(error messages snipped)

Thanks for the information, both of you.  I understand that release
engineering is not just about code but is also achieved by
coordination with developers and related software projects.

I wrote a mail to the author of Rake to ask if he could kindly release
a new version before the 1.8.6 final release goes out of the door.

Let me wait for his answer, and I'll post a follow-up on this later.

-- 
                     /
                    /__  __            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