[#16098] Testing hangs latest ruby 1.9 — Tommy Nordgren <tommy.nordgren@...>
When testing locally built ruby with make check,
[#16116] RCRchive shutting down — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Hi everyone --
This is quite sad news, I feel that a mailing list does not offer all
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:01 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
Can I ask the Trac naysayers what's wrong with it?
On 04/04/2008, mathew <meta@pobox.com> wrote:
Coming to Trac's defense:
[#16128] RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 03, 2008 at 11:41:41PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
On Apr 3, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Paul Brannan wrote:
Hi,
Ezra Zygmuntowicz wrote:
Hello,
Yemi I. D. Bedu wrote:
On 4 Apr 2008, at 00:23, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
On 4-Apr-08, at 3:05 AM, Eleanor McHugh wrote:
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Chris Cummer <chris@postal-code.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 02:23 +0900, Luis Lavena wrote:
On 4-Apr-08, at 11:04 AM, Alex Young wrote:
On Sat, 2008-04-05 at 03:35 +0900, Chris Cummer wrote:
[#16171] accomplishing compatibility (was Re: RUBY_IMPLEMENTATION) — "Meinrad Recheis" <meinrad.recheis@...>
On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 11:02 AM, Meinrad Recheis
On 4 Apr 2008, at 10:28, Meinrad Recheis wrote:
[#16216] unable to set $0 from C extension — "Suraj N. Kurapati" <sunaku@...>
Hello,
[#16223] Sigsegv out of Dir.pos in ruby_1_8 branch — "Vladimir Sizikov" <vsizikov@...>
Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
[#16231] Sigsegv when running Kernel rubysecs with ruby_1_8 branch — "Vladimir Sizikov" <vsizikov@...>
Hi,
Vladimir Sizikov wrote:
[#16240] syntax request — "ry dahl" <ry@...>
Often times when one has many long arguments and orders them like this
ry dahl wrote:
> Good point! I always just thought that would work, because the parser
ry dahl wrote:
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 2:44 PM, ry dahl <ry@tinyclouds.org> wrote:
Hi --
On 4/7/2008 10:00 AM, David A. Black wrote:
On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, Bill Kelly wrote:
On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 02:23:26PM +0900, David A. Black wrote:
At 00:02 08/04/09, Paul Brannan wrote:
On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 05:54:18PM +0900, Martin Duerst wrote:
> This is one use of method chaining I dislike.
[#16283] Marshal and singleton.rb - bug? — "Chris Shea" <cmshea@...>
Core,
[#16286] Complex, Rational, etc. — David Flanagan <david@...>
In addition to moving the Complex and Rational classes from stdlib to
[#16287] require_relative — David Flanagan <david@...>
I see that there is now a require_relative.rb module in the lib/
Hi,
[#16290] Could someone confirm signal handling is broken on OSX? — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
I've raised this before, but no one replied. I'd like to double check
[#16306] Hash.compare_by_identity — David Flanagan <david@...>
I saw this note about Hash#compare_by_identity at
[#16327] How can I demonstrate that weakref works in 1.9? — Dave Thomas <dave@...>
Hi --
[#16359] design meeting — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Hi,
Hi,
SASADA Koichi wrote:
Hi,
[#16371] ruby_init() and C call stack — "Suraj N. Kurapati" <sunaku@...>
Hello,
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Suraj N. Kurapati wrote:
Hi,
[#16378] cross-platform1: st1.dev == st2.dev and st1.ino == st2.ino considered harmful — Thomas Enebo <Thomas.Enebo@...>
I propose we add something which makes this system-specific code go away:
Thomas Enebo wrote:
Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
[#16385] Where's DATA? — Trans <transfire@...>
Anyone have any idea why I would be getting?
On Apr 14, 2008, at 07:21 AM, Trans wrote:
> On Apr 14, 8:23 pm, Eric Hodel <drbr...@segment7.net> wrote:
[#16395] RFC: VM Instruction Manipulation gem(s)? — "Rocky Bernstein" <rocky.bernstein@...>
Is anyone aware of or working on a package/gem for facilitation VM
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 01:02:42AM +0900, Rocky Bernstein wrote:
[#16397] Ruby 1.8.7-preview1 has been released — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>
Folks,
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hi,
[#16427] Rails broken with 1.8.7 bc Symbol#to_proc — Ola Bini <ola.bini@...>
Hi,
[#16462] revision number in ruby -v (1.9) — Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...>
[#16478] BUS error in string manip — ara howard <ara.t.howard@...>
[#16482] Performance on method dispatch for methods defined via define_method — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...>
Hi
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:39:29AM +0900, Robert Dober wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 8:46 PM, Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> wrote:
Hi --
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:44 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:
Hi --
David A. Black wrote:
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Joel VanderWerf wrote:
Robert Dober wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:37 AM, ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> wrote:
Robert Dober wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:37 AM, ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> wrote:
Robert Dober wrote:
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 11:25 AM, ts <decoux@moulon.inra.fr> wrote:
[#16507] Drop :: as a . synonym — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Hi --
David A. Black wrote:
Hi --
David A. Black wrote:
Hi --
David A. Black wrote:
Hi --
Or changing #send to private...or (insert progressive but code
Jeremy McAnally wrote:
Hi --
Hi,
Hi Matz --
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 04:49:00AM +0900, David A. Black wrote:
Hi --
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:27 AM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:
Hi --
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 12:24 PM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 08:34:20PM +0900, Nikolai Weibull wrote:
And why would you want to do that with dots? Because _JRuby_ requires it?
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 9:21 AM, David A. Black <dblack@rubypal.com> wrote:
Eric Mahurin wrote:
Eric Mahurin wrote:
[#16517] RFC: #19733 - dln_find_1 prioritizes posix naming conventions over Operating System naming conventions. — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...>
Hello ruby-core developers.
Hi,
[#16526] Any reason for having no module exclusion functionality in Ruby — "Pit Capitain" <pit.capitain@...>
Hi all, I'm forwarding the following message for Yurii, who seems to
+1.
Yehuda Katz wrote:
I want to +1 this again and reraise it for consideration.
[#16554] Action Item: RubySpec failures on Ruby 1.8.7 — "Vladimir Sizikov" <vsizikov@...>
Hi,
[#16576] sandbox API — _why <why@...>
Hi, everybody.
[#16599] Repeatable bug in Net::Telnet EOL translation — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...>
I have found a bug in Net::Telnet - it only occurs infrequently, and
> I'm helping out with the maintenance of net/telnet these days
Re: Ruby 1.8.7-preview1 has been released
On Apr 16, 11:09 am, Florian Gilcher <f...@andersground.net> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > I'm citing a message from talk, but I think it better fits into core: > > On Apr 16, 2008, at 4:40 AM, Pena, Botp wrote: > > > chuck-full, this looks like ruby1.9 without the vm :) > > Thats pretty much why i'm not looking forward to the 1.8.7 release. > > Ruby 1.8 is the major ruby version that is marked production-ready. > While there are cases where changes are necessary, this should mean > that the API is stable - at least when it comes to core classes, but > to some extend, this should also be true for the standard library. The > core should be frozen. > > Those changes are not minor. While they are backwards-compatible, they > severely break forward-compatibility between 1.8.6 and 1.8.7. While > those changes are nice, it gets increasingly hard to track what > features a specific minor(!) core(!!) version of Ruby actually > supports. As there are still many interpreter installations out there > that are not even on 1.8.6-level those features are essentially > useless. For example, some Linux packaging tools do not even install > 1.8.6 (apt for example). If you target your code towards a minor > version, you will be in a world of pain. As developers often use the > most recent version for development, chances are there that you run > into that trap. You can multitest, but it artificially increases > testing complexity. This is beginning to get a real problem when it > comes to configuration management. > Also, as we do have multiple interpreters for the standard-1.8.6- > distribution, it breaks compatibility for those. As much as I like having these changes, I feel somewhat the same way. I just got through adding "if ruby 1.9" clauses to various part of Facets, and now I will have to go back and add "if ruby 1.8.7" clauses. I'm torn. I'd rather just move on to 1.9 as fast as possible, in which case I'd rather not see all these new features in 1.8.7. OTOH, if 1.9 isn't really ready for production yet and won't be for a while, then these features are better to have than not to have. T.