[#68137] improve semantics of manpages — "Anthony J. Bentley" <anthony@...>
Hi,
1 message
2015/02/17
[#68144] Re: Future of test suites for Ruby — Anthony Crumley <anthony.crumley@...>
FYI...
4 messages
2015/02/17
[#68343] [Ruby trunk - Bug #10916] [Open] What the Ruby? SegFault? — ruby@...
Issue #10916 has been reported by why do i need this acct just to create a bug report.
5 messages
2015/02/27
[#68373] Re: [Ruby trunk - Bug #10916] [Open] What the Ruby? SegFault?
— "Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@...>
2015/03/02
> * Author: why do i need this acct just to create a bug report
[#68358] [Ruby trunk - Bug #10902] require("enumerator") scans LOAD_PATH 2x on every invocation — ruby@...1.net
Issue #10902 has been updated by Aman Gupta.
3 messages
2015/02/28
[ruby-core:68141] Re: Future of test suites for Ruby
From:
Benoit Daloze <eregontp@...>
Date:
2015-02-17 12:58:58 UTC
List:
ruby-core #68141
On 17 February 2015 at 13:32, Benoit Daloze <eregontp@gmail.com> wrote: > - The second step is really to choose a canonical RubySpec repository, to > avoid "death by too much forks". > This repository should only contain RubySpec tests for practical reasons. > We should allow many specs contributors to take part in merging changes > and maintaining specs. > I think this was a fatal flaw of rubyspec/rubyspec in that too few people > had the large burden of merging and maintaining the specs. > > The main existing repository I see today is nurse/rubyspec. > I am thinking the process could be similar to handling pull requests on > ruby/ruby in that some contributors would provide feedback and merge them. > The CI is very useful in this regard to ensure MRI is not broken > inadvertently. > I think it would make sense in that case to move nurse/rubyspec to ruby/rubyspec for clarity.