Anthony,

Thank you for wh= at you already did!

I am not sure about how to merge concretel= y yet, but cherry-picking 152 commits might prove quite problematic.
I would rather merge to keep both historic as intact as possible and add= commits after to fix the various issues, errors and failures.

Let's coordinate when we have ruby/rubyspec, either in an issue or IRC= .

On 17 = February 2015 at 14:39, Anthony Crumley <anthony.crumley@gmail.com= > wrote:

B= eniot and=C2=A0SHIBATA,

The reason I started with rubyspec/rubyspec rather than nurse/rub= yspec was, as SHIBATA mentioned, the 1.9.3 specs had already been removed.= =C2=A0 I felt like 1.9.3 support would be dropped before the tests were up = to date so that would save the work of removing them.=C2=A0 Also, it seemed= like it would be easier to cherry pick new commits from nurse/rubyspec tha= n then the other way around.

SHIBATA, I am EXCITED to be= able to work with you on RubySpec also. =C2=A0:)

Anthony
<= /div>

On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 7:29:26 AM Anthony Crumley <anthony.crumley@gmail.com>= wrote:
FYI...

When I started working through the 2.x issues the results o= n 2.3 were...

1801 files, 18020 examples, 153894 expectations, = 36 failures, 19 errors

Now the results are...<= /div>

1801 files, 18024 examples, 153918 expectations, 1= 6 failures, 12 errors

On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 7:16:57 AM Anthony Crumley <anthony.crumley@gmail.com> wrote:
Beniot,
=
I have been working on reconciling RubySpec with the 2.x MRI versions o= ver the last month. =C2=A0 https://github.com/anthonycru= mley/rubyspec/commits/master

My intent= ion is to:
1) Get RubySpec updated to run with all the 2.x versio= ns of MRI.
2) Get the nurse/rubyspec updates since the fork added= .
3) Get the updated RubySpecs into the MRI CI.
4) Hope= fully find that repo a home at either rubyspec/rubyspec or ruby/rubyspec.

I agree with you that the RubySpec tests are very v= aluable and would LOVE to work with you on them.

Anthony

On = Tue Feb 17 2015 at 6:59:48 AM Benoit Daloze <eregontp@gmail.com> wrote:
On 17 February 2015 at 13:32, Benoit Daloze <eregontp@g= mail.com> wrote:
- The second step is really to choose a canonical R= ubySpec 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 mergin= g changes and maintaining specs.
I think this was a fatal flaw of rubysp= ec/rubyspec in that too few people had the large burden of merging and main= taining the specs.

The main existing repository I s= ee today is nurse/rubyspec.
I am thinking the process could be similar t= o handling pull requests on ruby/ruby in that some contributors would provi= de feedback and merge them.
The CI is very useful in this regard to ensu= re MRI is not broken inadvertently.

I think it would make sense in that case to move nur= se/rubyspec to ruby/rubyspec for clarity.