[#9381] Native Thread extension for 1.8 — "Abhisek Datta" <abhisek@...>
Hello,
[#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
On 11/3/06, noreply@rubyforge.org <noreply@rubyforge.org> wrote:
Jacob Fugal wrote:
Hi,
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
[#9385] merge YARV into Ruby — SASADA Koichi <ko1@...>
Hi,
On Nov 3, 2006, at 9:11 PM, SASADA Koichi wrote:
On 11/4/06, SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
On Monday 06 November 2006 16:01, Kirill Shutemov wrote:
On Monday 06 November 2006 10:15, Sylvain Joyeux wrote:
On 11/6/06, Sean Russell <ser@germane-software.com> wrote:
On Monday 06 November 2006 13:37, Kirill Shutemov wrote:
On 11/6/06, Kirill Shutemov <k.shutemov@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/8/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/6/06, ville.mattila@stonesoft.com <ville.mattila@stonesoft.com> wrote:
On 2006-11-07 00:47:20 +0900, Kirill Shutemov wrote:
On 11/6/06, Marcus Rueckert <mrueckert@suse.de> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, Joshua Haberman wrote:
[#9402] fast mutexes for 1.8? — MenTaLguY <mental@...>
Many people have been using Thread.critical for locking because Ruby
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 23:17 +0900, Hugh Sasse wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, MenTaLguY wrote:
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 23:21 +0900, khaines@enigo.com wrote:
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 09:38, MenTaLguY wrote:
[#9450] Bikeshed: No more Symbol < String? — Kornelius Kalnbach <murphy@...>
Hi ruby-core!
Hi,
David wrote:
On Nov 7, 2006, at 2:28 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
Hi --
Hi,
Too bad, I was rejoicing to remove the need of
[#9470] Ruby performanmce improvements — "Michael Selig" <michael.selig@...>
I know you guys are in the middle of YARV stuff, but I thought you might be
Hi,
[#9472] Re: fast mutexes for 1.8? — Brent Roman <brent@...>
At RubyConf 2005 I gave an off-the-wall little talk about the
[#9493] Future Plans for Ruby 1.8 Series — URABE Shyouhei <shyouhei@...>
This week Japanese rubyists were talking about the future of ruby_1_8
[#9515] External entropy pool for random number generator — "Kirill Shutemov" <k.shutemov@...>
In the attachment patch which allow to use external entropy pool for
Hi,
On 11/13/06, Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
On 11/13/06, Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
Hi,
[#9520] Re: fast mutexes for 1.8? — Brent Roman <brent@...>
[#9540] Different return values for setter methods — "Marcel Molina Jr." <marcel@...>
>> class Setter; def set=(value) 1 end end
[#9547] Net::FTP should check the control connection on EPIPE — Simon Williams <simon.williams@...>
Hi,
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 11:23:01AM +0900, Shugo Maeda wrote:
[#9554] Ruby 1.[89].\d+ and beyond. — Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
I've been thinking about how version numbers are restricting what we can do.
On Fri, 17 Nov 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:
On Nov 16, 2006, at 12:02 PM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
On 11/16/06, Eric Hodel <drbrain@segment7.net> wrote:
On Nov 19, 2006, at 6:35 AM, Robert Dober wrote:
On Nov 19, 2006, at 8:13 AM, James Edward Gray II wrote:
> What if we need to exceed 1.8.9?
On Nov 19, 2006, at 10:30 PM, Kornelius Kalnbach wrote:
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006, Eric Hodel wrote:
Hugh Sasse wrote:
[#9572] io_write (io.c) bug (and its fix) under MS Windows for GUI apps (rubyw) — "Mounir Idrassi" <idrassi@...>
Hi all,
[#9581] type information — Deni George <denigeorge@...>
Hi,
Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:
[#9604] #ancestors never includes the singleton class (inconsistent) — <noreply@...>
Bugs item #6820, was opened at 2006-11-22 08:49
Hi,
> It is supposed to. Singleton classes (or eigenclasses, if you want to
On 11/27/06, Sylvain Joyeux <sylvain.joyeux@m4x.org> wrote:
> 2) You could think of all objects already having a singleton class
Re: Future Plans for Ruby 1.8 Series
URABE Shyouhei wrote: > This week Japanese rubyists were talking about the future of ruby_1_8 > branch. Triggered by the DoS vulnerability (refer > http://www.ruby-lang.org ) found in 1.8.5. There is a simple one-line > patch to fix this, but problem was that a ruby programmer cannot simply > detect whether that patch was applied or not on their system, as that > one-line patch doesn't change any version numbers. > > Some rubyists asserted that they need new version of ruby 1.8 to detect > this. But that's not easy, because ruby_1_8 branch has been far > developed from the point of 1.8.5 release. Releasing current ruby_1_8 is > not a wise idea. > > Debated on this, we now have these two choices: > > (1) Ruby development goes into three-branch-model (like branches in *BSD > world): > - CURRENT branch: trunk (currently ruby 1.9) > - STABLE branch: ruby_1_8 branch that exists now > - RELEASE branch: new branch to only adopt bug fixes > > (2) ruby_1_8 branch to be frozen. No new development except bug fixes > should be made on the branch. > > Choice (2) was based on so-called "Denver Accord". Meanwhile matz > expressed his opinion being (1). > Things are not fixed yet and (I think) should not until debates made on > this ML. So I want you to tell us your opinion. > > Where should ruby_1_8 go? > I'm quite accustomed to the FreeBSD development strategy. So I'd go for plan (1) but you'll need to make sure people understand that STABLE is a development branch, it makes sense once you know what the terms mean. I like the idea of flowing from one release to the next and tag the major releases. This allows for major development changes in CURRENT and you can trickle changes down to STABLE and eventually RELEASE. Plan (1) just allows for more flexibility.