[#21039] Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin@...>

Happy new year everyone.

94 messages 2009/01/01
[#21040] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — James Gray <james@...> 2009/01/01

On Jan 1, 2009, at 6:42 AM, Michael Klishin wrote:

[#21041] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — brabuhr@... 2009/01/01

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 11:22 AM, James Gray <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:

[#21042] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Federico Builes <federico.builes@...> 2009/01/01

brabuhr@gmail.com writes:

[#21049] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin@...> 2009/01/01

[#21053] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — znmeb@... 2009/01/01

Quoting Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin@gmail.com>:

[#21068] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/01/02

Hi,

[#21069] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Florian Gilcher <flo@...> 2009/01/02

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

[#21070] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "Luis Lavena" <luislavena@...> 2009/01/02

T24gRnJpLCBKYW4gMiwgMjAwOSBhdCAxMjoxOCBQTSwgRmxvcmlhbiBHaWxjaGVyIDxmbG9AYW5k

[#21073] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — mathew <meta@...> 2009/01/02

My opinion:

[#21078] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "Eust痃uio Rangel" <eustaquiorangel@...> 2009/01/02

My two cents:

[#21101] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...> 2009/01/03

Eust=E1quio Rangel wrote:

[#21102] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2009/01/03

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 21:40, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky <znmeb@cesmail.net> wrote:

[#21104] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...> 2009/01/03

Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#21106] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "Giuseppe Bilotta" <giuseppe.bilotta@...> 2009/01/04

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 10:39 PM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky

[#21114] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Joel VanderWerf <vjoel@...> 2009/01/04

Giuseppe Bilotta wrote:

[#21132] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin@...> 2009/01/05

[#21134] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2009/01/05

Michael Klishin wrote:

[#21080] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2009/01/02

On Jan 1, 2009, at 04:42 AM, Michael Klishin wrote:

[#21083] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2009/01/03

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 00:34, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:

[#21089] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Michael Klishin <michael.s.klishin@...> 2009/01/03

[#21147] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2009/01/05

On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 12:48:09PM +0900, Michael Klishin wrote:

[#21160] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2009/01/05

On Jan 2, 2009, at 17:25 PM, Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#21165] Re: Happy new year and... moving Ruby development to Git? — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2009/01/06

> I think I'm entitled to an opinion on the subject because I am a

[#21097] [Bug #977] caller for all threads patch — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Bug #977: caller for all threads patch

15 messages 2009/01/03
[#23760] Re: [Bug #977] caller for all threads patch — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...> 2009/06/08

I made a patch to Thread#caller(lev=1). It may be more flexible than

[#21244] [Bug #999] SSL & ZIP missing from ruby-1.9.1-preview1-i386-mswin32 — William Mason <redmine@...>

Bug #999: SSL & ZIP missing from ruby-1.9.1-preview1-i386-mswin32

14 messages 2009/01/10

[#21259] Do I need a special build arg to get irb to accept utf characters on OSX — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

I'm seeing very strange behavior at the irb prompt with ruby 1.9.1 =20

10 messages 2009/01/11

[#21310] [Bug #1008] Missing shell version of ruby-1.9 commands (gem, rake, ...) for MinGW installation — Chauk-Mean Proum <redmine@...>

Bug #1008: Missing shell version of ruby-1.9 commands (gem, rake, ...) for MinGW installation

8 messages 2009/01/13

[#21339] [Bug #1010] Ruby-1.9's rake sh doesn't work on Windows (but fix provided) — Chauk-Mean Proum <redmine@...>

Bug #1010: Ruby-1.9's rake sh doesn't work on Windows (but fix provided)

10 messages 2009/01/14

[#21399] Proposal: Module#copy_method — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...>

I'd like it to be possible to copy methods from one module to another. The

38 messages 2009/01/18
[#21428] Re: Proposal: Module#copy_method — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2009/01/19

Hi,

[#21550] [Feature #1046] request: ability to run without specifying .rb — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Feature #1046: request: ability to run without specifying .rb

13 messages 2009/01/24

[#21552] [Feature #1047] request: getters, setters for the GC — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Feature #1047: request: getters, setters for the GC

15 messages 2009/01/24

[#21613] [Bug #1063] in `write': Not enough space - <STDOUT> (Errno::ENOMEM) on Windows XP — Nick Gorbikoff <redmine@...>

Bug #1063: in `write': Not enough space - <STDOUT> (Errno::ENOMEM) on Windows XP

11 messages 2009/01/27

[#21640] [Bug #1068] Ruby Cannot Handle Some UIDs — James Gray <redmine@...>

Bug #1068: Ruby Cannot Handle Some UIDs

12 messages 2009/01/28
[#21642] Re: [Bug #1068] Ruby Cannot Handle Some UIDs — Ondrej Bilka <neleai@...> 2009/01/28

On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 05:00:05PM +0100, James Gray wrote:

[#21663] Re: [Bug #1068] Ruby Cannot Handle Some UIDs — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2009/01/29

Hi,

[#21701] [Feature #1081] add File::write() convenience method — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Feature #1081: add File::write() convenience method

34 messages 2009/01/31
[#28450] [Feature #1081] add File::write() convenience method — Yusuke Endoh <redmine@...> 2010/03/03

Issue #1081 has been updated by Yusuke Endoh.

[#28455] Re: [Feature #1081] add File::write() convenience method — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2010/03/04

Hi,

[#28472] Re: [Feature #1081] add File::write() convenience method — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/03/04

Hi,

[#21702] [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Feature #1082: add Object#singleton_class method

54 messages 2009/01/31
[#27372] [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...> 2010/01/02

Issue #1082 has been updated by Suraj Kurapati.

[#27384] Re: [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2010/01/04

Hi,

[#27394] Re: [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Yusuke ENDOH <mame@...> 2010/01/04

Hi,

[#27407] Re: [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2010/01/05

Hi,

[#27409] Re: [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2010/01/05

Hi,

[#28304] Re: [Feature #1082] add Object#singleton_class method — Shugo Maeda <shugo@...> 2010/02/23

Hi,

[ruby-core:21601] Ruby 1.9 versioning scheme and packaging

From: Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...>
Date: 2009-01-27 08:09:38 UTC
List: ruby-core #21601
Hi,

I'm one of the maintainers of the Debian package (and, consequently, of
the Ubuntu package) for Ruby, and I have some questions about your
current and future versioning scheme for Ruby 1.9.

With Ruby 1.8, we only used the first two digits (i.e 1.8, not 1.8.7 or
1.8.7.72) to version the core and standard library, as well as the
binary interface presented to programs using ruby throught
/usr/lib/libruby1.8.so.X.

I've heard the following about Ruby 1.9, please correct me if wrong:
  With Ruby 1.9, we are supposed to use three digits (1.9.1, not just
  1.9 or 1.9.1.3) to version the core and std libs. (Which are
  installed in /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1, not /usr/lib/ruby/1.9). Our
  problem is that, when 1.9.1 replaces 1.9.0, we need to transition
  all third party libraries so that they put their files in
  /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1 instead of /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.0.

  To make things worse, the API version (the name of the
  /usr/lib/ruby/#{APIVERSION} directory) is not related to the "ruby
  source version". For example, you could release Ruby 1.9.2, but, if
  the core and std libs are considered compatible, keep the files
  installed in /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.1.
  Or release 1.9.1.3, but change the API, and put the files in
  /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.2.
  And the same problem exists with the soname of the shared library.

Is that true?

Or can we make the following assumption:
   For a given Ruby version 1.9.a.b, the core/standard libs will be
   installed in /usr/lib/ruby/1.9.a, and the shared library will be
   named /usr/lib/libruby1.9.a.so.1.9.a. (or
   /usr/lib/libruby1.9.a.so.1.9.a, depending on the binary suffix)

That would really help packaging of Ruby ... :-)

Provided that the above assumption is true, we are inclined to package
ruby 1.9.1 in a "ruby1.9.1" package, which would allow several ruby1.9
version to coexist (for example, ruby1.9.1 and ruby1.9.2).
However, since that will require a transition each time a new ruby
version is released (when going from ruby1.9.a to ruby1.9.(a+1)), it
would be great for us if this didn't happen too frequently (that is, if
most of the development was done via point releases, ie ruby1.9.a.b,
ruby.1.9.a.c, ...).
Do you already have a rough idea of when ruby 1.9.2 will be released?

Thank you,
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |

In This Thread

Prev Next