[#34033] The rights of ruby-core people and Myth of ruby-dev — "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>

Some of you may don't know your rights.

32 messages 2011/01/03
[#34067] Re: The rights of ruby-core people and Myth of ruby-dev — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...> 2011/01/04

On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 06:55:47AM +0900, NARUSE, Yui wrote:

[#34043] proposal: gem_prelude needs to die — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>

I think it is time for gem_prelude to die.

21 messages 2011/01/04
[#34077] Re: proposal: gem_prelude needs to die — Tanaka Akira <akr@...> 2011/01/05

2011/1/4 Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com>:

[#34091] Moving to Git? — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...>

Hi,

87 messages 2011/01/05
[#34099] Re: Moving to Git? — KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...> 2011/01/05

> Hi,

[#34103] Re: Moving to Git? — "U.Nakamura" <usa@...> 2011/01/05

Hello,

[#34105] Re: Moving to Git? — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...> 2011/01/05

Em 05-01-2011 13:15, U.Nakamura escreveu:

[#34106] Re: Moving to Git? — "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...> 2011/01/05

(2011/01/06 0:46), Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote:

[#34112] Re: Moving to Git? — Jon <jon.forums@...> 2011/01/05

> > Well, I guess I can help listing some advantages. Using git:

[#34118] Re: Moving to Git? — mathew <meta@...> 2011/01/05

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:28, Jon <jon.forums@gmail.com> wrote:

[#34121] Re: Moving to Git? — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...> 2011/01/05

Em 05-01-2011 17:16, mathew escreveu:

[#34129] Re: Moving to Git? — mathew <meta@...> 2011/01/05

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 13:23, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas

[#34138] Re: Moving to Git? — Czarek <cezary.baginski@...> 2011/01/05

On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 06:50:24AM +0900, mathew wrote:

[#34188] Re: Moving to Git? — mathew <meta@...> 2011/01/06

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 17:02, Czarek <cezary.baginski@gmail.com> wrote:

[#34191] Re: Moving to Git? — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...> 2011/01/06

On 07/01/11 at 01:05 +0900, mathew wrote:

[#34201] Re: Moving to Git? — mathew <meta@...> 2011/01/06

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:36, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:

[#34206] Re: Moving to Git? — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...> 2011/01/07

On 07/01/11 at 08:07 +0900, mathew wrote:

[#34227] Re: Moving to Git? — mathew <meta@...> 2011/01/07

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 23:50, Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> wrote:

[#34231] Re: Moving to Git? — Daniel Bovensiepen <bovensiepen@...> 2011/01/07

Dear all,

[#34116] Re: Moving to Git? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2011/01/05

Hi,

[#34117] Re: Moving to Git? — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...> 2011/01/05

What kind of Redmine integration you are talking about? We use Redmine

[#34120] Re: Moving to Git? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2011/01/05

Hi,

[#34125] Re: Moving to Git? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...> 2011/01/05

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 19:57, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#34124] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4235][Open] svn keywords in code prevent correct building of ruby using git mirror — Stephen Bannasch <redmine@...>

Bug #4235: svn keywords in code prevent correct building of ruby using git mirror

12 messages 2011/01/05

[#34171] [Ruby 1.8-Feature#4239][Open] Let's begin a talk for "1.8.8" -- How's needed for surviving 1.8? — Shota Fukumori <redmine@...>

Feature #4239: Let's begin a talk for "1.8.8" -- How's needed for surviving 1.8?

104 messages 2011/01/06
[#34514] [Ruby 1.8-Feature#4239] Let's begin a talk for "1.8.8" -- How's needed for surviving 1.8? — Zeno Davatz <redmine@...> 2011/01/15

Issue #4239 has been updated by Zeno Davatz.

[#34516] Re: [Ruby 1.8-Feature#4239] Let's begin a talk for "1.8.8" -- How's needed for surviving 1.8? — "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...> 2011/01/15

(2011/01/16 0:11), Zeno Davatz wrote:

[#34214] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4247][Open] New features for Array#sample, Array#choice — Yoji Ojima <redmine@...>

Feature #4247: New features for Array#sample, Array#choice

10 messages 2011/01/07

[#34267] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4254][Open] Allow method transplanting — Jonas Pfenniger <redmine@...>

Feature #4254: Allow method transplanting

23 messages 2011/01/09
[#34280] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4254][Open] Allow method transplanting — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2011/01/10

Hi,

[#34299] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4256][Open] [BUG] Segmentation fault ruby 1.9.2p0 (2010-08-18) [i386-mingw32] — Rama Mahendravada <redmine@...>

Bug #4256: [BUG] Segmentation fault ruby 1.9.2p0 (2010-08-18) [i386-mingw32]

9 messages 2011/01/10

[#34318] ext/bigdecimal/lib/bigdecimal/util.rb — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...>

Hi Murata!

14 messages 2011/01/11
[#34321] Re: ext/bigdecimal/lib/bigdecimal/util.rb — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2011/01/11

Hi,

[#34354] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4264][Open] General type coercion protocol for Ruby — Charles Nutter <redmine@...>

Feature #4264: General type coercion protocol for Ruby

33 messages 2011/01/11
[#34359] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4264][Open] General type coercion protocol for Ruby — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...> 2011/01/11

[#34355] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4265][Open] Provide a core method Kernel#ruby for invoking a new Ruby instance — Charles Nutter <redmine@...>

Feature #4265: Provide a core method Kernel#ruby for invoking a new Ruby instance

15 messages 2011/01/11

[#34362] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4266][Open] Timeouts in threads cause "ThreadError: deadlock; recursive locking" — Christopher Bottaro <redmine@...>

Bug #4266: Timeouts in threads cause "ThreadError: deadlock; recursive locking"

12 messages 2011/01/11

[#34399] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4272][Open] rb_enc_str_new() causes segmentfault when using threads in parallel — Iñaki Baz Castillo <redmine@...>

Bug #4272: rb_enc_str_new() causes segmentfault when using threads in parallel

14 messages 2011/01/12

[#34534] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4283][Open] Timeout.timeout may cause application exit unintetionally — Motohiro KOSAKI <redmine@...>

Bug #4283: Timeout.timeout may cause application exit unintetionally

11 messages 2011/01/17

[#34537] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4285][Open] Ruby don't have asynchrounous exception safe syntax and It should have. — Motohiro KOSAKI <redmine@...>

Bug #4285: Ruby don't have asynchrounous exception safe syntax and It should have.

12 messages 2011/01/17

[#34550] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4288][Open] Allow invoking arbitrary method names with foo."something" syntax — Charles Nutter <redmine@...>

Feature #4288: Allow invoking arbitrary method names with foo."something" syntax

13 messages 2011/01/18
[#34616] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4288][Open] Allow invoking arbitrary method names with foo."something" syntax — Gary Wright <gwtmp01@...> 2011/01/19

[#34577] Importing rubygems 1.5.0 (release candidate) into trunk. — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>

I'm going to be committing rubygems 1.5.0 into trunk in a bit.

13 messages 2011/01/18

[#34632] Ruby operator equivalent to Groovy's "?." — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>

One of the few things I like in Groovy that Ruby doesn't support is

19 messages 2011/01/20

[#34634] Returning from the callee — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>

Sometimes it is useful to be able to return from the callee method.

15 messages 2011/01/20

[#34648] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4298][Open] Duration of calling String#[] with the same index is strangely related to string length. — Radosław Bułat <redmine@...>

Bug #4298: Duration of calling String#[] with the same index is strangely related to string length.

13 messages 2011/01/20

[#34861] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4326][Open] Fiber should respond to call() and [] — Aaron Patterson <redmine@...>

Feature #4326: Fiber should respond to call() and []

21 messages 2011/01/26
[#34943] [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4326] Fiber should respond to call() and [] — Charles Nutter <redmine@...> 2011/01/28

Issue #4326 has been updated by Charles Nutter.

[#34954] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4326] Fiber should respond to call() and [] — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...> 2011/01/28

On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 02:58:46AM +0900, Charles Nutter wrote:

[#34957] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Feature#4326] Fiber should respond to call() and [] — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...> 2011/01/29

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Aaron Patterson

[#34869] make ruby support line continuations ? — Marc Chantreux <khatar@...>

hello,

22 messages 2011/01/26
[#34878] Re: make ruby support line continuations ? — Jim Freeze <jimfreeze@...> 2011/01/26

> I love it so much i tried it in ruby. trying to rewrite:

[#34887] Re: make ruby support line continuations ? — Marc Chantreux <khatar@...> 2011/01/27

hello,

[#34889] Re: make ruby support line continuations ? — V咜 Ondruch <v.ondruch@...> 2011/01/27

Dne 27.1.2011 7:15, Marc Chantreux napsal(a):

[#34911] The ruby-lang.org downloads page should include RVM for OS X — Andrew Vos <andrew.vos@...>

(I sent this before I subscribed and I'm not sure if it bounced. Sorry if

21 messages 2011/01/27
[#34912] Re: The ruby-lang.org downloads page should include RVM for OS X — "Shota Fukumori (sora_h)" <sorah@...> 2011/01/27

RVM is not official, and makes problem more difficult. (magically

[#34913] Re: The ruby-lang.org downloads page should include RVM for OS X — Andrew Vos <andrew.vos@...> 2011/01/27

What do you mean by "official"? Also, what does it make more difficult? Do

[#34914] Re: The ruby-lang.org downloads page should include RVM for OS X — "Shota Fukumori (sora_h)" <sorah@...> 2011/01/27

return mail is gmail thing. I have same problem.

[#34970] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4343][Open] Dir.glob does match files without extension — Vit Ondruch <redmine@...>

Bug #4343: Dir.glob does match files without extension

26 messages 2011/01/29
[#34975] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4343] Dir.glob does match files without extension — Nobuyoshi Nakada <redmine@...> 2011/01/29

Issue #4343 has been updated by Nobuyoshi Nakada.

[#34978] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4343] Dir.glob does match files without extension — Jeremy Bopp <jeremy@...> 2011/01/29

On 01/29/2011 10:19 AM, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#34979] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4343] Dir.glob does match files without extension — Vít Ondruch <v.ondruch@...> 2011/01/29

Dne 29.1.2011 17:27, Jeremy Bopp napsal(a):

[#34981] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4343] Dir.glob does match files without extension — Jeremy Bopp <jeremy@...> 2011/01/29

On 01/29/2011 10:33 AM, Vテュt Ondruch wrote:

[#34982] Re: [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4343] Dir.glob does match files without extension — Vít Ondruch <v.ondruch@...> 2011/01/29

Dne 29.1.2011 17:53, Jeremy Bopp napsal(a):

[ruby-core:34132] Re: Moving to Git?

From: Loren Segal <lsegal@...>
Date: 2011-01-05 22:08:53 UTC
List: ruby-core #34132

On 1/5/2011 4:50 PM, mathew wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 13:23, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas
> <rr.rosas@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Regarding bazar, I don't know it, as much as most git users.
> I've observed that most git advocates don't know any other DVCS.
> That's probably why they advocate for git citing things that every
> single DVCS does.
>
>> I'm not against it, but I don't think that having a similar command set is a good enough
>> reason for using that instead of the much popular git...
> Well, obviously *you* wouldn't, because you've already taken the time
> to learn git and learn to deal with its pitfalls and idiosyncrasies.
> The point is that bzr wouldn't be a major learning effort for all the
> people currently using svn who don't know git.
>
> As far as popularity goes, http://wiki.bazaar.canonical.com/WhoUsesBzr
>
>
> mathew
>

I think it's important to realize that the choice of DVCS is as much a 
technical one as a pragmatic/personal preference one. Bazaar's *general* 
popularity is not all that relevant-- ultimately it comes down to 
popularity within the Ruby community. I don't have statistics, but I'm 
under the impression that the majority of Ruby users (not using SVN) are 
already using Git. Are we going to force them all to migrate to bzr? 
Would having a discussion about bzr's technical merits even convince 
them? Why not just stick to the tool that already has a critical mass 
and high adoption in the community? This just makes more sense to me.

I believe this discussion was restarted specifically because there has 
been a lot of willingness from Ruby users in the community to be able to 
contribute, but they were only familiar with Git and SVN was a blocker 
(the workflow makes it too complicated for them-- this is reasonable). 
It seems that if we were to talk about all the other DVCS's that aren't 
Git, we would be subverting the original proposal's intentions entirely, 
which is to make it easier for the majority of the community to be able 
to contribute patches. Bazaar does not accomplish this goal.

FWIW, I think Bazaar is a great tool. I've used it a few times (yes I do 
know other DVCS's), and I wish I could use it more-- but it simply 
doesn't make sense to move my repositories off of Github purely for 
technical reasons-- I would certainly lose out on potential contributors 
if I did so.

- Loren

In This Thread