[#24105] [Bug #1711] Marshal Failing to Round-Trip Certain Recurisve Data Structures — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>

Bug #1711: Marshal Failing to Round-Trip Certain Recurisve Data Structures

9 messages 2009/07/01

[#24116] [Bug #1715] Numeric#arg for NaN is Inconsistent Across Versions — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>

Bug #1715: Numeric#arg for NaN is Inconsistent Across Versions

10 messages 2009/07/02

[#24240] [Bug #1755] IO#reopen Doesn't Fully Associate with Given Stream on 1.9; Ignores pos on 1.8 — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>

Bug #1755: IO#reopen Doesn't Fully Associate with Given Stream on 1.9; Ignores pos on 1.8

8 messages 2009/07/09

[#24321] [Bug #1773] Gem path doesn't honor user gem? — Lin Jen-Shin <redmine@...>

Bug #1773: Gem path doesn't honor user gem?

12 messages 2009/07/14

[#24390] [Feature #1784] More encoding (Big5 series) support? — Lin Jen-Shin <redmine@...>

Feature #1784: More encoding (Big5 series) support?

12 messages 2009/07/16

[#24467] Re: [ruby-cvs:31226] Ruby:r24008 (ruby_1_8_6): Removed private on to_date and to_datetime. — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>

Hello.

10 messages 2009/07/21

[#24472] [Feature #1800] rubygems can replace system executable files — Kazuhiro NISHIYAMA <redmine@...>

Feature #1800: rubygems can replace system executable files

13 messages 2009/07/21

[#24530] [Feature #1811] Default BasicSocket.do_not_reverse_lookup to true — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Feature #1811: Default BasicSocket.do_not_reverse_lookup to true

9 messages 2009/07/23

[#24624] [Bug #1844] Immediates Should Not Respond to :dup — Run Paint Run Run <redmine@...>

Bug #1844: Immediates Should Not Respond to :dup

15 messages 2009/07/30

[ruby-core:24575] Re: Request: add better information to website download page.

From: James Gray <james@...>
Date: 2009-07-27 18:21:53 UTC
List: ruby-core #24575
On Jul 27, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Luis Lavena wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I would like to request addition of better text that clearly state the
> requirements for advertised Ruby binaries (at this time 1.8.7-p72 and
> 1.9.1-p0).

I don't think it's any problem to add what you are requesting.   
Correctly documenting what the binaries contain sounds like a good  
idea to me.

> Since I'm unaware of the website maintainer and protocol in relation
> to the website content, please respond to this message with
> instructions to follow to correct the above mentioned issue.

As long as we don't hear any objections, I'm happy to make the change  
for you.

I just need you to tell me exactly what I need to say and where on the  
page, so I get it right.

James Edward Gray II

In This Thread