[#38647] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5130][Open] Thread.pass sticks on OpenBSD — Yui NARUSE <naruse@...>

16 messages 2011/08/01

[#38653] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5135][Open] Ruby 1.9.3-preview1 tests fails in Fedora Rawhide — Vit Ondruch <v.ondruch@...>

31 messages 2011/08/01

[#38666] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5138][Open] Add nonblocking IO that does not use exceptions for EOF and EWOULDBLOCK — Yehuda Katz <wycats@...>

61 messages 2011/08/01
[#38667] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5138][Open] Add nonblocking IO that does not use exceptions for EOF and EWOULDBLOCK — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...> 2011/08/01

On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 07:35:15AM +0900, Yehuda Katz wrote:

[#38669] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5138][Open] Add nonblocking IO that does not use exceptions for EOF and EWOULDBLOCK — Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@...> 2011/08/01

(08/02/2011 07:46 AM), Aaron Patterson wrote:

[#38671] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5138][Open] Add nonblocking IO that does not use exceptions for EOF and EWOULDBLOCK — Eric Wong <normalperson@...> 2011/08/01

Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote:

[#38695] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5144][Open] Remove GPL file from repository — Vit Ondruch <v.ondruch@...>

17 messages 2011/08/02

[#38706] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5147][Open] mkmf should not require static library when ruby is built with --enable-shared — Vit Ondruch <v.ondruch@...>

9 messages 2011/08/02

[#38894] Why Ruby has versioned paths? — V咜 Ondruch <v.ondruch@...>

Hello, could somebody please elaborate about reasons why Ruby uses versioned

9 messages 2011/08/10

[#38972] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5193][Open] ruby_thread_data_type linker errors fixed with RUBY_EXTERN — Charlie Savage <cfis@...>

28 messages 2011/08/16

[#38980] :symbol.is_a?(String) — Magnus Holm <judofyr@...>

http://viewsourcecode.org/why/redhanded/inspect/SymbolIs_aString.html

8 messages 2011/08/16

[#39025] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5206][Open] ruby -K should warn — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>

14 messages 2011/08/19

[#39062] Releasing r33028 as Ruby 1.9.3 RC1 — Yugui <yugui@...>

Hi,

17 messages 2011/08/23

[#39093] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5227][Open] Float#round fails on corner cases — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core@...>

14 messages 2011/08/24
[#39115] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5227][Assigned] Float#round fails on corner cases — Yui NARUSE <naruse@...> 2011/08/26

[#39126] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5227][Assigned] Float#round fails on corner cases — Marc-Andre Lafortune <ruby-core-mailing-list@...> 2011/08/26

Hi

[#39120] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5233][Open] OpenSSL::SSL::SSLSocket has problems with encodings other than "ascii" — Niklas Baumstark <niklas.baumstark@...>

9 messages 2011/08/26

[#39142] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5239][Open] bootstraptest/runner.rb: assert_normal_exit logic broken on Debian/GNU kFreeBSD — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...>

11 messages 2011/08/27

[#39162] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #5244][Open] Continuation causes Bus Error on Debian sparc — Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@...>

29 messages 2011/08/28

[ruby-core:39107] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #5056] About 1.9 EOL

From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
Date: 2011-08-25 11:51:51 UTC
List: ruby-core #39107
>> I'm trying to reject new features for patch releases. ould you give
>> me an example of my mistake?
>
> We migrated from svn to git for Debian packaging and did not keep the
> history, so it's a bit hard to find exact references.
>
> Looking at the recent history, 1.9.2 has been good in that regard, with
> the exception of the fix for CVE-2011-0188 that is missing in .290,
> which we had to backport from another branch (fix is r30993).
> But that's not a good example, since it illustrates "hard to backport
> every relevant bugfix", not "patch releases containing new features".
>
> However, in the 1.8.7 branch, several patch releases were containing
> user-visible changes that were not bugfixes, leading to
> incompatibilities (I think it was in .72, but I'm not sure anymore). If
> the policy is to not do that anymore, I'm very happy. :)

Hi

I who linux kernel developer would like to explain this. In fact, Linux
has several stable branch maintainer and they have slightly different
maintenance policy. Similar, Ruby 1.8.7 and 1.9.2 have slightly different
policy. If you want and will become a branch maintainer of our community,
you may be able to have more different policy. That's authority and
responsibility
of a maintainer.

Anyway 1.8.7 is a really special exception, it's a final release of 1.8.x.
I don't think it's good example for discussing maintenance policy.

In This Thread