[#58149] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9076][Open] New one-argument block syntax: &. — "asterite (Ary Borenszweig)" <ary@...>
23 messages
2013/11/04
[#58259] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9099][Open] Train emoji lambda operator — "charliesome (Charlie Somerville)" <charliesome@...>
9 messages
2013/11/10
[#58312] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9107][Open] Introduce YES and NO as aliases of true and false — "gsamokovarov (Genadi Samokovarov)" <gsamokovarov@...>
5 messages
2013/11/13
[#58350] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9113][Open] Ship Ruby for Linux with jemalloc out-of-the-box — "sam.saffron (Sam Saffron)" <sam.saffron@...>
59 messages
2013/11/15
[#60851] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #9113][Open] Ship Ruby for Linux with jemalloc out-of-the-box
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2014/02/19
Btw, I also hope to experiment with a slab allocator since many internal
[#62721] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9113] Ship Ruby for Linux with jemalloc out-of-the-box
— nobu@...
2014/05/24
Issue #9113 has been updated by Nobuyoshi Nakada.
[#62735] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9113] Ship Ruby for Linux with jemalloc out-of-the-box
— normalperson@...
2014/05/25
Issue #9113 has been updated by Eric Wong.
[#58391] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9119][Assigned] TestTime#test_marshal_broken_offset broken under MinGW — "luislavena (Luis Lavena)" <luislavena@...>
10 messages
2013/11/17
[#58396] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9121][Open] [PATCH] Remove rbtree implementation of SortedSet due to performance regression — "xshay (Xavier Shay)" <contact@...>
15 messages
2013/11/18
[#58404] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9123][Open] Make Numeric#nonzero? behavior consistent with Numeric#zero? — "sferik (Erik Michaels-Ober)" <sferik@...>
40 messages
2013/11/18
[#58411] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9124][Open] TestSocket errors in test-all on Arch 64-bit — "jonforums (Jon Forums)" <redmine@...>
14 messages
2013/11/18
[#58515] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9124] TestSocket errors in test-all on Arch 64-bit
— "jonforums (Jon Forums)" <redmine@...>
2013/11/23
[#58841] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9124] TestSocket errors in test-all on Arch 64-bit
— "jonforums (Jon Forums)" <redmine@...>
2013/12/04
[#58842] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #9124] TestSocket errors in test-all on Arch 64-bit
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2013/12/04
"jonforums (Jon Forums)" <redmine@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#58452] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9133][Open] logger rotates log files more than expected — "no6v (Nobuhiro IMAI)" <nov@...>
8 messages
2013/11/21
[#58473] Object identity for string hash keys — Andrew Vit <andrew@...>
I'm not sure if this is a bug. I'm creating a hash like this:
5 messages
2013/11/21
[#58490] Re: [ruby-cvs:50910] drbrain:r43767 (trunk): * lib/rubygems: Update to RubyGems master 50a8210. Important changes — Tanaka Akira <akr@...>
2013/11/22 <drbrain@ruby-lang.org>:
4 messages
2013/11/22
[#58492] Re: [ruby-cvs:50910] drbrain:r43767 (trunk): * lib/rubygems: Update to RubyGems master 50a8210. Important changes
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2013/11/22
Tanaka Akira <akr@fsij.org> wrote:
[#58496] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9140][Open] Allow each_with_index to get start index — "rosenfeld (Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas)" <rr.rosas@...>
8 messages
2013/11/22
[#58545] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9145][Open] Queue#pop(true) return nil if empty instead of raising ThreadError — "jsc (Justin Collins)" <redmine@...>
9 messages
2013/11/24
[#58599] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9159][Open] [patch] use rb_fstring for internal strings — "tmm1 (Aman Gupta)" <ruby@...1.net>
5 messages
2013/11/26
[#58653] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9170][Open] Math.sqrt returns different types when mathn is included; breaks various gems - this bug can be reproduced in Ruby 1.8 as well — "kranzky (Jason Hutchens)" <JasonHutchens@...>
7 messages
2013/11/28
[#58719] [ruby-trunk - Feature #5446] at_fork callback API — "tmm1 (Aman Gupta)" <ruby@...1.net>
6 messages
2013/11/30
[ruby-core:58429] [Ruby 1.8 - Feature #4239][Closed] Let's begin a talk for "1.8.8" -- How's needed for surviving 1.8?
From:
"shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe)" <shyouhei@...>
Date:
2013-11-19 12:06:39 UTC
List:
ruby-core #58429
Issue #4239 has been updated by shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe).
Description updated
Status changed from Assigned to Closed
This target version no lnger exists. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you all.
----------------------------------------
Feature #4239: Let's begin a talk for "1.8.8" -- How's needed for surviving 1.8?
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/4239#change-43024
Author: sorah (Shota Fukumori)
Status: Closed
Priority: Normal
Assignee: shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe)
Category: core
Target version: Ruby 1.8.8
=begin
###########################
# This issue is translated from #4207.
# For Japanese: This translation needs proofreading. If you have a patch, please send to sorah[at]tubusu[dot]net.
# Newer version of translation available at: https://gist.github.com/b2c4f223d3ee0bca72ad
###########################
# http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/4207
= Let's begin a talk for "1.8.8" -- How's needed for surviving 1.8?
Hi,
I know that we cannot release ruby_1_8 branch... more than anyone.
But the time past 3 years from 1.9.0, and 2.5 years from 1.8.7;
it will be turned to 3 years in June 2011.
Why I'm marking "3 years," because releasing interval over 3 years
first time ever, and almost systems have revised after 3 years from
developed in my experience... so, almost codes which targets 1.8.7
preparing to revised; I think.
Well, Which version used when codes which targets 1.8.7 are revised,
I recommend 1.9.2 on my post, but almost can't use 1.9.x in
actuality. Like, Extension libraries doesn't work.
When can't use 1.9.x in codes, so it means use only 1.8.7. but it is
really tough, for making tasks with 1.8.7, and I think that when I
can give up maintaining 1.8.7? when my motivation is decreasing in
future, it won't increase again. So I want to use new version,
and don't use 1.8.7. New codes must target newer versions.
So, I want to set directions about 1.8.x future. I'm considing that
destroy ruby_1_8 branch and we won't release 1.8.8 for a one of
ideas. If we won't release 1.8.8, it means that can publish
announcement about 1.8.7 is last version of 1.8 branch,then 1.8
goes to last maintainance release. ah, in simplicity developers
task is decreased; developers will be happy.
P.S.: I hope that people in a posision like Endoh Yusuke at 1.9.2.
Anyone?
###
# http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/show/4207#note-6
Well, Organize this issue without my factors, currently we have the following
issues of 1.8.8.
* the time past 3 years from 1.9.0 released. In last 3 years, We released
1.9.2 smoothly at 1.9 branch. Thanks Yugui (Yuki Sonoda).
Also many users are using 1.9.x at forms of RailsDevCon.
http://railsdevcon.jp/RailsDevCon2010report.pdf
* 1.8.8 (and 1.8.7?) is on migration step to 1.9, but if we continue
developing 1.8.8 at this rate and release 1.8.8 in 2020, do users which
haven't migrated to 1.9 exist?
* Currently does ruby_1_8 include any prompting structures to migrate
1.9.x more than 1.8.7 at all? Just not merged same patches as 1.9?
* "I want to release so I release. Any users didn't effect." is a one of
views, but it makes unhappy by recognition differences?
So.. Because 1.8 mustn't let be uncontrolled,
I propose the following ideas which possible:
1. Not today but ASAP, release 1.8.8 as "better 1.8.7." Release goal is this
Summer.
2. Develop 1.8.8 until it's approached to ideal. Users can't be affect.
Release goal is 2020 Christmas.
3. We won't release 1.8.8 never. Drop.
4. Otherwise I haven't thought yet.
I don't specify any idea for adoption.
Anyhow, I think that 1.8 mustn't keep current principle, so I asking "What do we do?"
Well.. what do we do?
=end
--
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/