[#36679] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4814][Open] minitest 2.2.x and test/unit do not get along — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>
[#36707] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4818][Open] Add method marshalable? — Joey Zhou <yimutang@...>
[#36711] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4821][Open] Random Segfaults (in start_thread?) — Ivan Bortko <b2630639@...>
[#36714] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4822][Open] String#capitalize improvements — Anurag Priyam <anurag08priyam@...>
[#36720] Direct modifications to RubyGems in trunk? — Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
Hello,
[#36730] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4824][Open] Provide method Kernel#executed? — Lazaridis Ilias <ilias@...>
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 07:20:32AM +0900, Rocky Bernstein wrote:
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 10:03 AM, Cezary <cezary.baginski@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 11:20:31AM +0900, Rocky Bernstein wrote:
On Mon, Jun 6, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas
[#36741] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4828][Open] crash in test_thread_instance_variable — Motohiro KOSAKI <kosaki.motohiro@...>
[#36750] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4830][Open] Provide Default Variables for Array#each and other iterators — Lazaridis Ilias <ilias@...>
[#36764] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4831][Open] Integer#prime_factors — Yusuke Endoh <mame@...>
[#36785] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4840][Open] Allow returning from require — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>
Hello,
Hi,
Em 23-07-2012 10:12, mame (Yusuke Endoh) escreveu:
On Jun 6, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote:
On 07/06/2011, at 12:18 AM, Michael Edgar wrote:
(2012/07/24 0:44), alexeymuranov (Alexey Muranov) wrote:
[#36787] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4841][Open] WEBrick threading leads to infinite loop — Peak Xu <peak.xu+ruby@...>
[#36799] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4845][Open] Provide Class#cb_object_instantiated_from_literal(object) — Lazaridis Ilias <ilias@...>
[#36834] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #3905] rb_clear_cache_by_class() called often during GC for non-blocking I/O — Charles Nutter <headius@...>
Charles Nutter <headius@headius.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@headius.com> wrote:
[#36863] Object#trust vs Object#taint — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...>
Hi,
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:49:06AM +0900, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 8:19 PM, Aaron Patterson
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:46 AM, Shugo Maeda <shugo@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 4:21 AM, Shugo Maeda <shugo@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#37071] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4877][Open] Unify Variable Expansion within Strings — Lazaridis Ilias <ilias@...>
[#37106] ruby core tutorials location — Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...>
Hello all.
> Hello all.
> Rather than adding links to source code, I would prefer the wikibooks link and others under a new Tutorials section of http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/ as well as adding http://ruby.runpaint.org/ to the existing Getting Started section.
> > Rather than adding links to source code, I would prefer the wikibooks link and others under a new Tutorials section of http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/ as well as adding http://ruby.runpaint.org/ to the existing Getting Started section.
> I like what you're trying to do and see how great that tutorial connection from rdoc/yard could be, say, mixing with existing ruby-doc.org and rubydoc.info. ut I question embedding source links to info in which the info can easily grow outdated or abandoned as time passes. I also question the ongoing maintenance burdens.
> > I like what you're trying to do and see how great that tutorial connection from rdoc/yard could be, say, mixing with existing ruby-doc.org and rubydoc.info. ut I question embedding source links to info in which the info can easily grow outdated or abandoned as time passes. I also question the ongoing maintenance burdens.
> My feedback was specific to the suggestion of embedding links into the Ruby source tree, not the issue of whether more documentation is needed. For the tutorials scenario you raised, I believe links from http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/ (e.g. - a new Tutorials section) are a more adaptable and maintainable _implementation_ for dealing with documentation realities than links in source.
[#37139] [Bug: ruby-1.9] test-all on without openssl system — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
Hi,
[#37144] Ruby 1.8.6 status — Tanaka Akira <akr@...>
Hi.
[#37164] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4890][Open] Enumerable#lazy — Yutaka HARA <redmine@...>
[#37170] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4893][Open] Literal Instantiation breaks Object Model — Lazaridis Ilias <ilias@...>
[#37192] rb_w32_add_socket / rb_w32_remove_socket — ghazel@...
Hello,
[#37206] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4896][Open] Add newpad() support to Curses — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
[#37207] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4897][Open] Define Math::TAU and BigMath.TAU. The "true" circle constant, Tau=2*Pi. See http://tauday.com/ — Simon Baird <simon.baird@...>
Issue #4897 has been updated by Nobuyoshi Nakada.
[#37217] coerce — Ondřej Bílka <neleai@...>
Hello
2011/6/18 Ondřej Bílka <neleai@seznam.cz>:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 04:06:05PM +0900, Robert Klemme wrote:
2011/6/21 Ondřej Bílka <neleai@seznam.cz>:
[#37265] Re: Welcome to our (ruby-core ML) You are added automatically — "Anthony Crognale" <anthony@...>
mget last:10 mp
[#37286] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4916][Open] [BUG] Segmentation fault - dyld: lazy symbol binding failed: Symbol not found: _ASN1_put_eoc — Hiroshi NAKAMURA <nakahiro@...>
[#37288] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4917][Open] NilClass#to_ary — Jay Feldblum <y_feldblum@...>
[#37289] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4918][Assigned] Make all core tests inherit from Test::Unit::TestCase — Martin Bosslet <Martin.Bosslet@...>
[#37336] I have imported Rake 0.9.2 to trunk — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
I asked Jim if he would like me to import rake 0.9.2 to trunk, so I have.
[#37401] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #3784] Seg fault in webrick — Yui NARUSE <redmine@...>
[#37463] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4480][Assigned] Thread-local variables issue: Thread#[] returns nil when called first time — Yui NARUSE <redmine@...>
[#37546] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4934][Open] winsock listen backlog may only be set once, and is set to 5 — Greg Hazel <ghazel@...>
[#37551] [ANN] Ruby Weekly Report — "Shota Fukumori (sora_h)" <sorah@...>
Hi,
[#37576] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4938][Open] Add Random.bytes [patch] — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@...>
[#37588] CI? — Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>
Is this an official CI for ruby?
(2011/06/28 6:28), Ryan Davis wrote:
[#37612] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4941][Open] cannot load such file -- rubygems.rb (LoadError) — Lazaridis Ilias <ilias@...>
[ruby-core:37691] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4481][Feedback] Add client_ca method to OpenSSL::SSLSocket
Issue #4481 has been updated by Martin Bosslet. Category set to ext Status changed from Closed to Feedback Assignee changed from Martin Bosslet to Hiroshi Nakamura Just added Ippei's patch. I took the liberty to add a sentence to RDoc pointing out that in contrast to SSLContext#client_ca=, where we set X509::Certificates, the newly added SSLSocket#client_ca will only return an array of X509::Names. I looked at how this is used internally by OpenSSL and as it turns out this list seems neither to be checked nor used at all during the handshake except for sending the list to the client. This means that it would be perfectly possible to send any list of certificates to the client, no matter if they're actually trusted or not. As a consequence, this means that it is the programmer's duty to keep this list correct and meaningful with respect to the actually trusted X509::Certificates. This made me wonder - wouldn't it be nicer to have the list pre-populated with the CA certificates of the underlying X509::Store that serves as the basis for client certificate validation to have a meaningful default setting? Should the need arise to have a custom setting (e.g. sending a filtered subset of the trusted CA's in specific situations), developers would still be able to do so by overriding the default list using SSLContext#client_ca= on the server side. Another thing I don't like too much is that since the list is not checked internally it would also be possible to send untrusted CAs to the client. Although this is not undermining the security it still makes no sense since a client using a certificate issued by an untrusted CA would ultimately get rejected anyway. But nevertheless, I'd feel better if we forbid such silly things right away. Since we only use SSL_CTX_add_client_CA(SSL_CTX *ctx, X509 *cacert) for feeding the client CA list in ext/openssl, it would be possible for us to actually verify that those CA certificates are a) contained in the list of trusted CA certificates or b) at least that they are trusted intermediate certificates whose certificate path leads up to a trusted root being among the trusted CAs. Wouldn't this be better? Or am I overlooking anything? What do you guys think? Should one or both of these features added to what we have right now? If you think so, I would open a new ticket so this one can be closed. PS: (I'll add further tests once we concluded on the topic, I just added a very basic test for now). ---------------------------------------- Feature #4481: Add client_ca method to OpenSSL::SSLSocket http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/4481 Author: Ippei Obayashi Status: Feedback Priority: Normal Assignee: Hiroshi Nakamura Category: ext Target version: 1.9.3 =begin Please add "client_ca" method to OpenSSL::SSLSocket to solve the following problem. Problem: If a SSL server decide to authenticate clients using client-certificates, the server can send the list of client CAs to a client as a hint, and the client can use the list to select an appropriate certificate. But the current ruby's ext/openssl does not have the API to access the list. Solution: Add a wrapper function for SSL_get_client_CA_list. Two patches (new method and test) are attached to this message. =end -- http://redmine.ruby-lang.org