[#9382] the sign of a number is omitted when squaring it. -2**2 vs (-2)**2 — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #6468, was opened at 2006-11-03 17:25

9 messages 2006/11/03

[#9385] merge YARV into Ruby — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>

Hi,

42 messages 2006/11/04
[#9405] Re: merge YARV into Ruby — "Kirill Shutemov" <k.shutemov@...> 2006/11/06

On 11/4/06, SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:

[#9406] Re: merge YARV into Ruby — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2006/11/06

On Monday 06 November 2006 16:01, Kirill Shutemov wrote:

[#9417] Re: merge YARV into Ruby — Sean Russell <ser@...> 2006/11/06

On Monday 06 November 2006 10:15, Sylvain Joyeux wrote:

[#9428] Re: merge YARV into Ruby — "Kirill Shutemov" <k.shutemov@...> 2006/11/06

On 11/6/06, Sean Russell <ser@germane-software.com> wrote:

[#9402] fast mutexes for 1.8? — MenTaLguY <mental@...>

Many people have been using Thread.critical for locking because Ruby

24 messages 2006/11/06

[#9450] Bikeshed: No more Symbol < String? — Kornelius Kalnbach <murphy@...>

Hi ruby-core!

21 messages 2006/11/07
[#9452] Re: Bikeshed: No more Symbol < String? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/11/07

Hi,

[#9493] Future Plans for Ruby 1.8 Series — URABE Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>

This week Japanese rubyists were talking about the future of ruby_1_8

13 messages 2006/11/09

[#9515] External entropy pool for random number generator — "Kirill Shutemov" <k.shutemov@...>

In the attachment patch which allow to use external entropy pool for

13 messages 2006/11/11
[#9522] Re: External entropy pool for random number generator — "Nobuyoshi Nakada" <nobu@...> 2006/11/13

Hi,

[#9554] Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond. — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>

I've been thinking about how version numbers are restricting what we can do.

30 messages 2006/11/16
[#9561] Re: Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond. — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2006/11/16

[#9563] Re: Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond. — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...> 2006/11/16

On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:

[#9564] Re: Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond. — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2006/11/16

On Nov 16, 2006, at 12:02 PM, Hugh Sasse wrote:

[#9571] Re: Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond. — "Robert Dober" <robert.dober@...> 2006/11/19

On 11/16/06, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:

[#9604] #ancestors never includes the singleton class (inconsistent) — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #6820, was opened at 2006-11-22 08:49

12 messages 2006/11/22
[#9618] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-6820 ] #ancestors never includes the singleton class (inconsistent) — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2006/11/25

Hi,

[#9629] Re: [ ruby-Bugs-6820 ] #ancestors never includes the singleton class (inconsistent) — Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@...4x.org> 2006/11/27

> It is supposed to. Singleton classes (or eigenclasses, if you want to

Re: merge YARV into Ruby

From: "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...>
Date: 2006-11-08 20:32:34 UTC
List: ruby-core #9483
On 11/8/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/6/06, Kirill Shutemov <k.shutemov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/6/06, Sean Russell <ser@germane-software.com> wrote:
> > > 1) Sylvain is right about the development model of Ruby being more
> > > in-line with having a central repository.
> > Do you think that distributed repository will not be useful for adding
> > new libs to standart library or make a global redesign in ruby core? I
> > think it's very similar to kernel development process(adding new
> > drivers and changing internal interfaces).
>
> I think exactly that. IME, distributed SCMs are wasteful of resources
> most of the time.
> I'd *almost* prefer to see Ruby move to p4 than any distributed SCM.
> (And yes, I know it's a proprietary product. Ruby, however, being an
> open source project, would qualify for open source licensing.)

And I'd *almost* wish people would just shut the fuck up and drop this
fucking retarded discussion that's leading us fucking nowhere.  It's
obvious that some people prefer Git, some Monotone, some Subversion,
and obviously some *almost* prefer Perforce.  It's also obvious that
it's up to the project maintainers to decide what fucking tool they
fucking want to use.  I'm sure that if they find Subversion to be
fucked up (and I'm sure they will, sooner or later) we can have this
stupid fucking discussion at that point.  It's not like we're locking
Ruby into Subversion prison indefinitely.  So can we please fucking
leave it at that and stop wasting precious fucking discussion and get
back to Symbols and Strings?

  nikolai

In This Thread