[#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:34903] Re: [Backport92-Backport#4200] minitest 2.0.2 on trunk

From: Yugui <yugui@...>
Date: 2011-01-27 14:29:31 UTC
List: ruby-core #34903
Hi Ryan,

I have merged bug fixes in MiniTest. It is harder than what I thought.

* I did not import lib/minitest/benchmark.rb because it is a new feature.
* I suspect the change in lib/minitest/mock.rb is to merge.
  I agree that the minitest/mock.rb before 5916 had had a wrong
design. But 5916 changes minitest/mock's behavior anyway.
* I merged a part of changes for test/minitest/test_mini_mock.rb.
  I did not merge the rest of the changes which depends on 5916.
* I did not import lib/minitest/pride.rb because it seems a new feature.
* I did not import lib/minitest/spec.rb because its change consits of:
  * minor feature change in Module#infect_with_assetions (sorting)
  * debug print? (Module#infect_with_assertions)
  * refactoring (relocation of calling #infect_with_assertions)
  * following a new feature (calling #infact_with_assertions for assert_silent)
  * feature change (Kernel#describe)
  * adding rdocs (Module#infect_with_assertions, MiniTest::Spec, ...)

  I do not merge any rdoc change into ruby_1_9_2 except fixing a
terribly confusing description.

* MiniTest::Unit
  * I did not merge 5783 because it only adds new features.
  * I did not merge 5785 because it only updated the version.  I think
we should not update the version because I never add new feature into
ruby_1_9_2 so minitest in ruby_1_9_2 is not 1.7.0.
  * I did not merge 5835 because of the same reason.
  * I merged a part of 5875 because it is a bug. Once I decided not to
merge shyouhei's fix because I regarded it as a limitation of minitest
1.6.0 that MiniTest::Skip broke the assersion. It was a wrong
decision.
  * I did not merge 5877 because it just updated the version.
  * I did not merge 5884 because it changed behavior.
  * I did not merge 5886 because it is an enhancement and a refactoring.
  * I did not merge 5889 because it is a fix for a bug in 5886.
  * I did not merge 5905 because it seemed something related to 5886.
  * I did not merge 5906 because it updated the version.
  * I did not merge 5908 because it added a new feature.
  * I did not merge 5911 because it was a refactoring related to 5908.
  * I did not merge 5913 because it was a refactoring related to 5908.
  * I did not merge 5918 because it only affects Ruby 1.8 or eariler.
    By the way, I think the condition should be RUBY_VERSION >= "1.9".
  * I did not merge 5922 because it was a refactoring.
  * I did not merge 5923 because it contained only style changes.
  * I did not merge 5924 because it was a refactoring.
  * I did not merge 5926 because it was a refactoring + adding after_tests{ }.
  * I merged only a part of 5937 which fixed some messages.
  * I did not merge 5939 because it was a typo.
  * I did not merge 5944 because there is not README.txt for MiniTest
in Ruby's repository.
  * I did not merge 5945 because it was a rdoc fix.
  * I did not merge 5948 because I did not merge the latter half of 5937.
  * I did not merge 5951 because it just updated the version.
  * I did not merge 6056 becuase it is a minor feature change and only
affects on $DEBUG == true
  * I merged 5907
  * I did not merge 6058 because I did not merge 5901.
  * I did not merge 6059 because I did not merge 5901.
  * I did not merge 6072 because it was a minor improvement, not a bug.
  * I did not merge 6079 because it just updated the version.
  * I did not merge 6093 becuase of the same reason.
  * I did not merge 6095 because it is for Ruby 1.9.3.

-- 
Yuki Sonoda (Yugui)
yugui@yugui.jp
http://yugui.jp

In This Thread