[#54777] [ruby-trunk - Feature #8368][Open] Socket.getifaddrs — "akr (Akira Tanaka)" <akr@...>
6 messages
2013/05/04
[#54784] Call setlocale(LC_ALL, "") instead of setlocale(LC_CTYPE, "") — Nikolai Weibull <now@...>
Hi!
6 messages
2013/05/04
[#54786] Re: Call setlocale(LC_ALL, "") instead of setlocale(LC_CTYPE, "")
— Tanaka Akira <akr@...>
2013/05/04
2013/5/5 Nikolai Weibull <now@disu.se>:
[#54800] Re: Call setlocale(LC_ALL, "") instead of setlocale(LC_CTYPE, "")
— Nikolai Weibull <now@...>
2013/05/05
On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Tanaka Akira <akr@fsij.org> wrote:
[#54810] Re: Call setlocale(LC_ALL, "") instead of setlocale(LC_CTYPE, "")
— KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2013/05/05
>> I think it is acceptable that make ruby more robust.
[#54850] [ruby-trunk - Feature #8377][Open] Deprecate :: for method calls in 2.1 — "charliesome (Charlie Somerville)" <charliesome@...>
27 messages
2013/05/07
[#54915] [ruby-trunk - Feature #8377] Deprecate :: for method calls in 2.1
— "jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans)" <merch-redmine@...>
2013/05/11
[#54900] [ruby-trunk - Bug #8386][Open] OpenSSL thread safety — "dbussink (Dirkjan Bussink)" <d.bussink@...>
12 messages
2013/05/10
[#54924] Re: [ruby-changes:28599] hsbt:r40651 (trunk): fixed wrong document for Socket.tcp by @lann [fix GH-302] — Tanaka Akira <akr@...>
2013/5/12 hsbt <ko1@atdot.net>:
4 messages
2013/05/12
[#54939] [ruby-trunk - Bug #8399][Open] Remove usage of RARRAY_PTR in C extensions when not needed — "dbussink (Dirkjan Bussink)" <d.bussink@...>
32 messages
2013/05/12
[#54963] [ruby-trunk - Bug #8399] Remove usage of RARRAY_PTR in C extensions when not needed
— "dbussink (Dirkjan Bussink)" <d.bussink@...>
2013/05/13
[#55001] [ruby-trunk - Bug #8399] Remove usage of RARRAY_PTR in C extensions when not needed
— "dbussink (Dirkjan Bussink)" <d.bussink@...>
2013/05/15
[#55004] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #8399] Remove usage of RARRAY_PTR in C extensions when not needed
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2013/05/15
(2013/05/15 14:38), dbussink (Dirkjan Bussink) wrote:
[#55053] [ruby-trunk - Feature #8426][Open] Implement class hierarchy method caching — "charliesome (Charlie Somerville)" <charliesome@...>
21 messages
2013/05/19
[#55077] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #8426][Open] Implement class hierarchy method caching
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2013/05/20
Great work!
[#55083] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #8426][Open] Implement class hierarchy method caching
— Charlie Somerville <charlie@...>
2013/05/20
On Monday, 20 May 2013 at 1:35 PM, SASADA Koichi wrote:
[#55085] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #8426][Open] Implement class hierarchy method caching
— SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
2013/05/20
(2013/05/20 18:21), Charlie Somerville wrote:
[#55058] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5458] DL should be removed — "luislavena (Luis Lavena)" <luislavena@...>
3 messages
2013/05/19
[#55068] Re: [ruby-cvs:48003] zzak:r40834 (trunk): * lib/pp.rb: Document PP::ObjectMixin [Fixes GH-312] — Tanaka Akira <akr@...>
2013/5/20 <zzak@ruby-lang.org>:
7 messages
2013/05/20
[#55071] Re: [ruby-cvs:48003] zzak:r40834 (trunk): * lib/pp.rb: Document PP::ObjectMixin [Fixes GH-312]
— Zachary Scott <zachary@...>
2013/05/20
@akr Oh, thank you for pointing that out!
[#55072] Re: [ruby-cvs:48003] zzak:r40834 (trunk): * lib/pp.rb: Document PP::ObjectMixin [Fixes GH-312]
— Tanaka Akira <akr@...>
2013/05/20
2013/5/20 Zachary Scott <zachary@zacharyscott.net>:
[#55073] Re: [ruby-cvs:48003] zzak:r40834 (trunk): * lib/pp.rb: Document PP::ObjectMixin [Fixes GH-312]
— Zachary Scott <zachary@...>
2013/05/20
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Tanaka Akira <akr@fsij.org> wrote:
[#55075] Re: [ruby-cvs:48003] zzak:r40834 (trunk): * lib/pp.rb: Document PP::ObjectMixin [Fixes GH-312]
— Tanaka Akira <akr@...>
2013/05/20
2013/5/20 Zachary Scott <zachary@zacharyscott.net>:
[#55096] [ruby-trunk - Feature #8430][Open] Rational number literal — "mrkn (Kenta Murata)" <muraken@...>
28 messages
2013/05/21
[#55197] [ruby-trunk - Feature #8461][Open] Easy way to disable certificate checking in XMLRPC::Client — "herwinw (Herwin Weststrate)" <herwin@...>
11 messages
2013/05/29
[#55198] [ruby-trunk - Feature #8462][Open] Module.remove_const inconsistant naming — "kyledecot (Kyle Decot)" <kyle.decot@...>
7 messages
2013/05/29
[ruby-core:54904] Re: Plan to the first 2.0.0 patchlevel release.
From:
Jon <jon.forums@...>
Date:
2013-05-10 17:05:02 UTC
List:
ruby-core #54904
> 2013/5/6 Jon <jon.forums@gmail.com>: > >> > #8142 > >> > #8143 > >> > #8149 > >> These seem like performance optimization patches. > >> The optimization patches have less priority for backport. > >> I think a patch achieves noticeable performance improvement could be treated > >> as "a bug fix". It'll fixes a heavy performance reduction ;-) > >> But now, just before the coming release, I want to be conservative. > > > > I don't understand your comment. > > > > Is your concern that the internal improvement patches are too complex to backport this close to the > > coming release, but you plan to backport them for the next 2.0.0 patchlevel release? > > > > On Sat, 11 May 2013 00:45:11 +0900 > Tomoyuki Chikanaga <nagachika00@gmail.com> wrote: > No. > Basically, optimization is not a subject of backport. > If you think they are worth enough to backport, please move the > tickets to Ruby200 project, > or file a backport ticket with your reason. I now understand the issue, thank you. I have a different perspective on #8142, #8143, and #8149 and ask that you reconsider backporting the patches to ruby_2_0_0 (not 1_9_x) for the following reasons: 1) While it is true that by removing unnecessary allocations and duplications these patches could be viewed as optimizations, the patches could also be viewed as fixes to an "incorrect" original impl. By "incorrect" I mean that Aman's code which performs fewer allocations and duplications is likely what the original author would have preferred if he would have had more real-world usage info before creating the original code. Yes, the old see-into-the-future gift ;) 2) The scope and size of the patches are small. 3) The patches do not appear to be the cause of new regressions on rubyci.org or ci.rubyinstaller.org. 4) Ruby 2.0.0 is the latest release and likely has not been accepted as the mainstream production-ready version by a majority of users. Aman's patches make 2.0.0 more attractive, not less, and appear to have minimal risk. Rather than incenting people to maintain private patch queues to gain the benefits of these patches, the patches belong on the official ruby_2_0_0 branch. As an aside (and regardless of what you decide) thank you for your spectacular efforts maintaining 2.0.0. In my time with MRI I can't remember a time of such timely and regular backporting. Fabulous! :) Jon