[#59445] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9335][Open] dynamic rescue regression in Ruby 2.1 — "fdr (Daniel Farina)" <daniel@...>
[#59462] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9342][Open] [PATCH] SizedQueue#clear does not notify waiting threads in Ruby 1.9.3 — "jsc (Justin Collins)" <redmine@...>
[#59466] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9343][Open] [PATCH] SizedQueue#max= wakes up waiters properly — "normalperson (Eric Wong)" <normalperson@...>
Issue #9343 has been updated by Eric Wong.
[#59498] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9352][Open] [BUG] rb_sys_fail_str(connect(2) for [fe80::1%lo0]:3000) - errno == 0 — "kain (Claudio Poli)" <claudio@...>
[#59516] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9356][Open] TCPSocket.new does not seem to handle INTR — "charliesome (Charlie Somerville)" <charliesome@...>
Issue #9356 has been updated by Shugo Maeda.
[#59517] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9357][Open] TracePoint's c_return traces return from call to 'trace' — "andhapp (Anuj Dutta)" <anuj@...>
[#59538] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9362][Assigned] Minimize cache misshit to gain optimal speed — "shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe)" <shyouhei@...>
Intersting challenge.
On 01/06/2014 04:52 PM, SASADA Koichi wrote:
On 01/06/2014 06:11 PM, Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
(2014/01/06 23:10), Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
On 01/07/2014 07:36 AM, SASADA Koichi wrote:
Hi, I noticed a trivial typo in array.c, and it fails building struct.c
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
Btw, I just pushed a few trivial fixes up (a few more failures below):
OK, last update of the night :o I think everything is good on 32-bit...
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
Btw, I started working on cachelined-time branch on git://80x24.org/ruby
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
On 01/06/2014 12:02 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
[#59564] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9365][Open] Sporadic TypeError (wrong argument type Thread (expected VM/thread)) from IO#close (via Net:HTTP) — "ggiesemann (Geoffrey Giesemann)" <geoffwa@...>
Issue #9365 has been updated by Geoffrey Giesemann.
[#59728] Ruby 2.1.0 in Production: known bugs and patches — Aman Gupta <ruby@...1.net>
Last week, we upgraded the github.com rails app to ruby 2.1.0 in production.
Hello Aman,
[#59770] bug report did not propagate to ruby-core — Mean Login <meanlogin@...>
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9416
[#59791] About unmarshallable DRb objects life-time — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>
A while ago I created a proof-of-concept that I intended to use in my
On 15 Jan 2014, at 11:58, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@gmail.com> wrote:
Em 15-01-2014 19:42, Eric Hodel escreveu:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 02:15, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@gmail.com> wrote:
Em 16-01-2014 19:43, Eric Hodel escreveu:
On 17 Jan 2014, at 04:22, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@gmail.com> wrote:
Em 17-01-2014 19:53, Eric Hodel escreveu:
On 18 Jan 2014, at 15:12, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@gmail.com> wrote:
Em 20-01-2014 21:51, Eric Hodel escreveu:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 02:01, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@gmail.com> wrote:
Em 21-01-2014 19:36, Eric Hodel escreveu:
[#59807] [ruby-trunk - misc #9421] [Open] [PATCH] doc/contributing.rdoc: allow/encourage other git hosts — normalperson@...
Issue #9421 has been reported by Eric Wong.
[#59882] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9428] [Rejected] Inline argument expressions and re-assignment — matz@...
Issue #9428 has been updated by Yukihiro Matsumoto.
On 2014/01/20 11:32, matz@ruby-lang.org wrote:
[#59909] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9425] [PATCH] st: use power-of-two sizes to avoid slow modulo ops — shyouhei@...
Issue #9425 has been updated by Shyouhei Urabe.
shyouhei@ruby-lang.org wrote:
[#60229] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9427] [Feedback] [PATCH] io.c: remove socket check for sendfile — akr@...
Issue #9427 has been updated by Akira Tanaka.
[#60377] Re: [ruby-cvs:51920] nobu:r44775 (trunk): socket.c: suppress warnings — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
nobu@ruby-lang.org wrote:
[ruby-core:59902] [ruby-trunk - misc #9215] Maintenance Policy for Future Releases (2.1.0 & beyond)
Issue #9215 has been updated by Martin D端rst. Hello Zachary, From the comments from Yui, it looks like the policy should be split up into an internal (for Ruby commiters, and in particular those in charge of releases,...) and an external (for users) part. Also, please note that because Ruby isn't a company, we have to be careful with commitments. It's clear that for Ruby users, the more and the more explicit commitments there are, the better. But on the other hand, everybody, in particular also people in charge of releases, are just volunteers. They may be able to use some of their company's time, but that may change. They may use some of their free time, but that may also change. So with respect to release and support policy, it's very important to get the okay of the actual person in charge. Matz may be okay with some release or support policy, but if the actual person in charge isn't okay with it, that won't help. Of course it's always possible that companies explicitly commit support for some version of Ruby (that has e.g. happened for Ruby 1.8.7), and I think it would be good if any related document such as a release policy would mention this possibility. Regards, Martin. On 2014/01/20 15:43, naruse@airemix.jp wrote: > Issue #9215 has been updated by Yui NARUSE. > > >> We'd like to take a minute and discuss our plans for ruby-core supported maintenance periods of Ruby. > > "take a minute and discuss" is not useful for users. It should be simply "We release" or "decide" or something. > >> backports will be made to the `ruby_MAJOR_MINOR` branch > > this information is not for users. > > >> The ruby-core team is responsible for a proper End-of-Life for each `MINOR` version of Ruby. >> >> Our current format is to assign a maintainer for each `MINOR` series of Ruby. It's important to note that this person is not obligated to commit for the entire 3 year suggested maintenance period. >> >> Our main goal to avoid sudden death. > > What do you want to say in these paragraph? > If this is announce, the audience is users. > They read this, "We want to avoid sudden death". > "ah, ok... and what ruby-core will do?" > > The content is just a memorandum. > > See also rails' maintenance policy: http://weblog.rubyonrails.org/2013/2/24/maintenance-policy-for-ruby-on-rails/ > or you should see other policies. > >> Any decision made on Ruby development is based on the consensus of ruby-core as a team. The decision must be implicitly or explicitly approved by members of the maintenance policy team: > > This is not for users, just for you, zzak. > > ---------------------------------------- > misc #9215: Maintenance Policy for Future Releases (2.1.0& beyond) > https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9215#change-44446 > > * Author: Terence Lee > * Status: Feedback > * Priority: Normal > * Assignee: Zachary Scott > * Category: doc > * Target version: 2.1.0 > ---------------------------------------- > In order to support long lived applications better, people need information to make decisions. When someone chooses to use a particular programming language it窶冱 important to know how long something is going to be supported. > > For future releases it窶囘 be great if we could provide a formal end of life window upon release. This would allow companies to be able to make decisions on how long something will be supported. For instance, when Ruby 2.1.0 comes out this Christmas, giving an expectation that support will be stopped by 12/25/2015 gives an accurate picture of how much time must be allocated to upgrading, how urgent it will be, or if Ruby is even the right language for the project. > > > ---------------------------------------- misc #9215: Maintenance Policy for Future Releases (2.1.0 & beyond) https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9215#change-44449 * Author: Terence Lee * Status: Feedback * Priority: Normal * Assignee: Zachary Scott * Category: doc * Target version: 2.1.0 ---------------------------------------- In order to support long lived applications better, people need information to make decisions. When someone chooses to use a particular programming language it窶冱 important to know how long something is going to be supported. For future releases it窶囘 be great if we could provide a formal end of life window upon release. This would allow companies to be able to make decisions on how long something will be supported. For instance, when Ruby 2.1.0 comes out this Christmas, giving an expectation that support will be stopped by 12/25/2015 gives an accurate picture of how much time must be allocated to upgrading, how urgent it will be, or if Ruby is even the right language for the project. -- http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/