[#8478] resolv.rb -- doc patch. — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
This is an attempt to get the RD format docs for resolv.rb into
[#8484] strptime fails to properly parse certain inputs — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #5263, was opened at 2006-08-01 23:14
Hi,
Hi,
nobu@ruby-lang.org wrote:
Why bother other languages? They are on their own. We should not
[#8497] Ruby Socket to support SCTP? — Philippe Langlois <philippelanglois@...>
Hi,
[#8504] TCPSocket: bind method missing — hadmut@... (Hadmut Danisch)
Hi,
[#8513] patches for the 1.8.5 deadline... — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
As far as I can tell the only patches which I've submitted which
On Aug 3, 2006, at 10:20 AM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:
[#8522] IRB change for RDoc workaround — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
RDoc chokes on the following code:
[#8525] rdoc bug? — Steven Jenkins <steven.jenkins@...>
I think I've found a bug in rdoc's handling of C files. Specifically, it
[#8555] Process.gid= fails on OS X — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #5351, was opened at 2006-08-08 01:56
>>>>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 17:56:07 +0900
Hi,
Hi,
>>>>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 12:31:07 +0900
Hi,
[#8561] sandbox timers & block scopes — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>
Two puzzles I am trying to solve:
On 8/8/06, why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@whytheluckystiff.net> wrote:
On 8/16/06, Francis Cianfrocca <garbagecat10@gmail.com> wrote:
raise ThisDecayingInquisition, "anyone? anyone at all?"
On Wed, 2006-08-16 at 00:35 +0900, why the lucky stiff wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 02:46:30AM +0900, MenTaLguY wrote:
On 8/15/06, why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@whytheluckystiff.net> wrote:
On 8/15/06, Charles O Nutter <headius@headius.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 16, 2006 at 04:14:33AM +0900, Charles O Nutter wrote:
On 8/15/06, why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@whytheluckystiff.net> wrote:
Hi,
[#8568] Pathname.to_a — Marc Haisenko <haisenko@...>
Hi folks,
[#8585] RDoc: extensions spread across multiple C files — Tilman Sauerbeck <tilman@...>
Hi,
Tilman Sauerbeck [2006-08-11 00:39]:
[#8593] ri problem with the latest ruby_1_8 — "Kent Sibilev" <ksruby@...>
Does anyone know why for some strange reason ri doesn't know about any
On Aug 11, 2006, at 10:55 AM, Kent Sibilev wrote:
[#8608] Another ri problem (ruby_1_8 branch) — "Kent Sibilev" <ksruby@...>
I've noticed that many builtin Ruby classes don't have descriptions:
On Aug 12, 2006, at 11:45 PM, Kent Sibilev wrote:
On 8/15/06, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
[#8609] Again Range=== bug — Ondrej Bilka <neleai@...>
Problem of discrete membership at Range#=== is that it returns unexpected
[#8616] invalid test in "sudo make install-doc"? — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #5415, was opened at 2006-08-14 12:01
[#8662] NODE_WHEN inside a case else body — "Dominik Bathon" <dbatml@...>
Hi,
[#8690] a ruby-core primer — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>
Hello, all. I've been working on the ruby-core page for the new Ruby site.
On 8/22/06, why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@whytheluckystiff.net> wrote:
On 8/24/06, Dave Howell <groups+2006@howell.seattle.wa.us> wrote:
[#8709] More ri-problems (ruby_1_8 branch again) — Johan Holmberg <holmberg@...>
Hi!
[#8735] Legal operator symbols — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...>
Why are :>, :>=, :<=, :< fine as symbols, while := isn't?
Hi --
[#8758] sandbox r50, here we go, loading conflicting gems — why the lucky stiff <ruby-core@...>
Checky.
1.8.5 final update candidates (was Re: RDoc picking up comments from function prototypes)
Hi,
In message "Re: RDoc picking up comments from function prototypes"
on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 02:24:58 +0900, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> writes:
|> I attached a patch to fix that problem, please apply so it can go into
|> ruby 1.8.5.
|
|Unless I get approval from matz it is too late for 1.8.5.
Yep, it should be a few days earlier. But I do want 1.8.5 to be the
best quality. So I might give approval for several updates.
Candidates are:
* [ruby-core:08574] RDoc for function prototypes. (this one)
* [ruby-core:08453] RingServer fails to find a TupleSpace
* [ruby-core:08555] Process.gid= fails on OS X
The update should be
* approved by me and assigned maintainer
* should be tested
* should not have any compatibility issue
Any opinion?
matz.