[#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:68142] Re: Future of test suites for Ruby
From:
SHIBATA Hiroshi <shibata.hiroshi@...>
Date:
2015-02-17 13:15:45 UTC
List:
ruby-core #68142
Hi, Benoit. > - The first step is to bring nurse/rubyspec up to date with > rubyspec/rubyspec archive's branch. > I am willing to do that if no one has an objection against it. Any help is > welcome of course! (just email me) I will help to this work. 1 month ago, I investigate rubyspec's archive branch. I found following issues: * rubyspec removed to support Ruby 1.9.3 * but MRI 1.9.3 is ended at Feb. 23, it's not problem now. * some spec is failing on 2.3.0 > - 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. I agreed with your suggestion. I will coordinate with nurse. Please wait few days. (PS. I think it's better to move nurse/mspec to ruby/mspec) > - The third step is to decide what to do about new specs which are not > contributed to the canonical repository directly. > This is worth another discussion and I think it is wiser to first achieve > the two first steps before discussing this in more details. this topic is epic for me. we need to finish 1 and 2 steps at first. -- SHIBATA Hiroshi shibata.hiroshi@gmail.com http://www.hsbt.org/