[#35027] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4352][Open] [patch] Fix eval(s, b) backtrace; make eval(s, b) consistent with eval(s) — "James M. Lawrence" <redmine@...>

Bug #4352: [patch] Fix eval(s, b) backtrace; make eval(s, b) consistent with eval(s)

16 messages 2011/02/01

[#35114] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4373][Open] http.rb:677: [BUG] Segmentation fault — Christian Fazzini <redmine@...>

Bug #4373: http.rb:677: [BUG] Segmentation fault

59 messages 2011/02/06

[#35171] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4386][Open] encoding: directive does not affect regex expressions — mathew murphy <redmine@...>

Bug #4386: encoding: directive does not affect regex expressions

9 messages 2011/02/09

[#35237] [Ruby 1.9-Bug#4400][Open] nested at_exit hooks run in strange order — Suraj Kurapati <redmine@...>

Bug #4400: nested at_exit hooks run in strange order

12 messages 2011/02/15

[ruby-core:35315] Re: Patch to Net::InternetMessageIO

From: Daniel Cormier <daniel.cormier@...>
Date: 2011-02-19 16:03:01 UTC
List: ruby-core #35315
Since it's there and is being used (by net/smtp at least), shouldn't
it at least work properly until it's replaced?

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 10:59 AM, mathew <meta@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 23:41, Daniel Cormier <daniel.cormier@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It seems like waiting for BDAT support to be implemented before fixing
>> a bug with period escaping (which is already being done and will still
>> have to be done) for the DATA command is not the best experience for
>> ruby users. Would you agree?
>
> I just noticed that net/protocol.rb says
>
> # WARNING: This file is going to remove.
> # Do not rely on the implementation written in this file.
>
> So it seems like it was never intended to be production-ready in the
> first place, so I'm not sure why it got included in Ruby.
>
>
> mathew
> --
> <URL:http://www.pobox.com/~meta/>
>
>

In This Thread

Prev Next