[#17055] Set#map! vs. map — "David A. Black" <dblack@...>
Hi --
Hi,
At Tue, 3 Jun 2008 10:13:07 +0900,
At Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:39:10 +0900,
Hi --
At Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:03:23 +0900,
[#17067] Eval'ing 'yield' in 1.8 and 1.9 — "Vladimir Sizikov" <vsizikov@...>
Hi,
Hi,
[#17069] Ruby on zLinux — "Eric K. Dickinson" <eric.dickinson@...>
I posted this on the Ruby-Talk list with no success.
[#17084] Enumerable::Enumerator#with_memo — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>
Hi,
Akinori MUSHA wrote:
Akinori MUSHA wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 12:11 PM, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 10:57 PM, Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@bitsweat.net> wrote:
Martin DeMello wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 10:04 AM, David Flanagan
David Flanagan wrote:
[#17092] Iconv#iconv(str, start, length) doesn't really convert str[start, length] — Vincent <vincentlu@...>
Hi Core,
Hi Core,
Hi,
[#17106] r16747: This commit and comment are real? — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...>
Checking a feed of the changes in ruby repository found this:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Luis Lavena <luislavena@gmail.com> wrote:
[#17116] Standardizing RUBY_PLATFORM — Brian Ford <brixen@...>
Hi all,
On Jun 4, 8:52=A0pm, Brian Ford <bri...@gmail.com> wrote:
[#17126] remove ObjectSpace.each_object from test/unit — Tanaka Akira <akr@...>
I wrote a patch to remove ObjectSpace.each_object from test/unit.
[#17155] lambda { break } — ts <decoux@...>
Hi,
[#17161] Ruby 1.8.7-p17 has been released — "Akinori MUSHA" <knu@...>
Folks,
[#17162] Release Plan: Ruby 1.9.0-2 — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
Hi,
Hi,
Hi,
Hi,
Kouhei Sutou <kou@cozmixng.org> writes:
I have to agree, on the documentation side.
SASADA Koichi wrote:
[#17167] Mail count in Subject — "Dirk Traulsen" <dirk.traulsen@...>
Hi!
All,
Warren Brown wrote:
At 11:54 08/06/10, Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 4:54 AM, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Luis Lavena wrote:
[#17186] REXML Separation — Federico Builes <federico.builes@...>
Hello,
[#17261] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #161] (Open) Profile library seems broken in 1.9 15427cat t.rv — Dave Thomas <redmine@...>
Issue #161 has been reported by Dave Thomas.
[#17272] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #167] (Open) net/telnet login() method no longer works under 1.9 — Dave Thomas <redmine@...>
Issue #167 has been reported by Dave Thomas.
On Jun 15, 2008, at 11:25 PM, Dave Thomas wrote:
Yes, indeed it does...
[#17283] Major change in 1.8.6: convert_type now uses private conversion methods too — "Vladimir Sizikov" <vsizikov@...>
Hi,
Vladimir Sizikov wrote:
Hi,
[#17291] miniruby dependencies broken in 1.9 — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>
I've been having builds break with -j 4. This should add $(PREP) to
Hi,
[#17293] [Ruby 1.8 - Bug #175] (Open) Rational#power2 raises a NameError or causes infinite loops when passed a Rational — Arthur Schreiber <redmine@...>
Issue #175 has been reported by Arthur Schreiber.
[#17310] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #178] (Open) File.open on sprintf-formatted string fails with encoding conversion error on OS X — Eric Hodel <redmine@...>
Issue #178 has been reported by Eric Hodel.
Issue #178 has been updated by Yui NARUSE.
[#17327] A plea for a release process — Brian Ford <brixen@...>
Hi all,
Hello,
On Jun 18, 1:12=A0pm, "U.Nakamura" <u...@garbagecollect.jp> wrote:
[#17345] Understanding the output of Kernel#caller — "Wilson Bilkovich" <wilsonb@...>
I am trying to understand what Ruby 1.8 outputs when "caller" is invoked.
[#17353] patches for tests of rubygems — "Yusuke ENDOH" <mame@...>
Hi,
Hi,
On Jun 24, 2008, at 05:55 AM, Yusuke ENDOH wrote:
On Jun 25, 2008, at 11:21 AM, Eric Hodel wrote:
[#17356] A faster Array#delete — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...>
Hi all,
[#17377] Re: Ruby 1.9.0/1.8.7/1.8.6/1.8.5 new releases (Security Fix) — "Bill Kelly" <billk@...>
Hi,
[#17392] XMLRPC socket patch — Dario Meloni <mellon85@...>
Hi,
[#17393] URGENT: Possible fixes for segfaults and vulnerabilities available for review in ruby-talk — "Igal Koshevoy" <igal@...>
All currently available versions of MRI Ruby are either vulnerable to
Sorry for a late reply but I think I've fixed this issue. Can someone
Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
Igal Koshevoy wrote:
Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
Igal Koshevoy wrote:
Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
Hello, I think current 1.8.6/1.8.7 is stable than p230/p22, so I decided
On Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 12:41 PM, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hello,
Hi Urabe,
Vladimir Sizikov wrote:
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
Igal Koshevoy wrote:
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
On 7/3/08, Igal Koshevoy <igal@pragmaticraft.com> wrote:
Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
On 02/07/2008, Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@sun.com> wrote:
In article <a5d587fb0807160533r4534fabdg257b4a9523b15f1e@mail.gmail.com>,
On Sat, Jul 19, 2008 at 02:18:05PM +0900, Federico Builes wrote:
On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 12:43:46AM +0900, Federico Builes wrote:
When will we see a new 1.8.6 release?
Hi,
Hi,
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 02:04:15AM +0900, Vladimir Sizikov wrote:
On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 04:35:43AM +0900, Jeremy Henty wrote:
Jeremy,
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 9:19 PM, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org>
Hi,
Hi,
When can we expect a release?
Hi Vladimir, hi Urabe,
Thank you, I merged this revision into 1.8.7.
Hi,
In article <48662E99.7030508@pragmaticraft.com>,
Federico Builes wrote:
Igal Koshevoy wrote:
M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
Igal Koshevoy wrote:
Igal Koshevoy wrote:
Tanaka Akira wrote:
In article <48678E3D.8020602@pragmaticraft.com>,
Tanaka Akira wrote:
In article <4867A6AC.4060902@pragmaticraft.com>,
[#17412] Time for a release management committee? — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...>
It seems like recent problems with patchlevel and minor 1.8 releases
[#17427] 1.8 release management — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 06:06:14PM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
Let me describe some simple questions about Ruby 1.8.6 that are not
For what I know,
On 6/30/08, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 4:41 PM, Igal Koshevoy <igal@pragmaticraft.com> wrote:
Luis Lavena wrote:
Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
Igal Koshevoy wrote:
Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
Hi,
Vladimir Sizikov wrote:
On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Igal Koshevoy <igal@pragmaticraft.com> wrote:
[ruby-core:17327] A plea for a release process
Hi all, I'd like to open a discussion about the possibilities of formalizing a release process for MatzRuby. First, here are several points that contribute to the problems I see: 1. There are presently at least 4 highly viable alternative implementations for Ruby. We agreed at a recent ruby-design meeting that we would all follow MatzRuby's RUBY_VERSION and RUBY_PATCHLEVEL to indicate to user code precisely what features and behavior that code can expect of the language and libraries. 2. The RubySpec project includes "guards" (mechanisms to control the execution of particular specs) for version_is/version_is_not and ruby_bug that take a string like "1.8.6.114" to indicate version and patchlevel. The guards make it possible to run the specs sanely across many operating systems, versions, and implementations, but using the guards also complicates the specs. 3. There are multiple currently-supported versions of MatzRuby (at least 1.8.5.x, 1.8.6.x, 1.8.7.x, 1.9.x if I'm not mistaken). The RubySpec project attempts to accommodate every single alternative implementation and every supported version of MatzRuby at least from 1.8.6 onward. This is definitely a work in progress, but it has accomplished a great deal toward the goal of ensuring that everyone who writes Ruby code can do so with confidence that their code will run correctly on any compatible version of the *Ruby language*, not just on an implementation. Recently, there has been an explosion of patchlevel commits in MatzRuby. There have been over 200 since 4 June 2008, and there were 92 in a single day, on 15 June 2008. At least that's what I see with these two commands: svn log --limit 200 http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/tags svn log --limit 200 http://svn.ruby-lang.org/repos/ruby/tags | grep '15 Jun 2008' | wc -l There are at least two significant problems that arise from the combination of everything above. First, whenever there are bugs in one of these released patchlevels, the RubySpec sources must have ruby_bug and possibly version_is guards added. The ruby_bug guard ensures that the spec for the correct behavior will run on alternative implementations, but *not* run on the MatzRuby version with the bug. This is done to prevent a bunch of errors when running the RubySpecs on an already released version of MatzRuby (since nothing can be done about the errors until a new version or patchlevel). With so many patchlevels being released, the number of these guards is increasing. While the guards are useful, they complicate the specs and should ideally be avoided. Second, since alternative implementations do not get any notice of what features will be released, they are continually playing catch-up. What this means for a user is that code that ran yesterday on JRuby, for example, might break today on the released version of MatzRuby. If we are all writing code for a particular implementation, this won't be much of an issue. But one of the biggest goals of the RubySpec project is to ensure that a user _does not have to worry about where their code will run_. So, I'd like to suggest that the community and the MatzRuby core developers come to some agreement on a process for MatzRuby releases. Here are several features I hope the process will include: 1. Security fixes should be highest priority. A patchlevel across versions that incorporates security fixes should be released as soon as possible. It would be great to have the issues communicated to key folks across all alternative implementations, but that might not be possible in every situation. 2. A regular schedule of patchlevel releases on some reasonable timetable (one month, two months?). For each of these scheduled releases: 2.a. A wiki page on the new Redmine tracker that lists the features to be rolled in from the particular version's development branch. 2.b. An opportunity for folks to run the specs against these proposed changes to catch errors before the release is done. 2.c. Along with 2.b. this would give alternative implementations an opportunity to plan to release the same fixes/features with the corresponding RUBY_VERSION and RUBY_PATCHLEVEL synchronized to match the MatzRuby releases at a time closer to when the MatzRuby releases occur. 2.d. An opportunity for the community to then be aware of what is planned to be released and comment on it so that we don't have situations like what recently happened here (http://groups.google.com/ group/ruby-core-google/browse_thread/thread/1b116e4bbaeca3d2). If the process is formalized a bit, I am sure there will be folks that will help out with things needed at various stages. The RubySpec project and the Rubinius project are working toward having a single command that can be used to run the specs against all official versions of MatzRuby based on Ryan Davis' multiruby tool. We hope to make this process as simple and pain free as possible. The Ruby community is presently growing in complex ways with the appearance of multiple, useful alternative implementations of the Ruby language. My hope (and I believe the hope of everyone who contributes to or uses the RubySpec project) is to ensure people continue to find the Ruby language great to use regardless of the implementation. Since we are all following the "standard" implementation (MatzRuby), it would help tremendously if we could, somehow, formalize (a bit) the release process for MatzRuby. Cheers, Brian