Hi all. It is going on 3 months since the last (and first) 1.8.6 release, so we are now planning to make a patchlevel release for it. Currently the new release is planned on 9th June (Japanese timezone). If you have anything that should be fixed in that, please inform us.
on 25.05.2007 12:37
on 25.05.2007 14:59
On 25/05/07, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote: > Hi all. > > It is going on 3 months since the last (and first) 1.8.6 release, so we > are now planning to make a patchlevel release for it. Currently the new > release is planned on 9th June (Japanese timezone). If you have anything > that should be fixed in that, please inform us. Seems like the issue reported in [ruby-talk:248647] has not been resolved yet in the ruby_1_8 branch. I've attached the patch again. Peter
on 25.05.2007 17:17
> release, so we are now planning to make a patchlevel release > for it. Currently the new release is planned on 9th June > (Japanese timezone). If you have anything that should be > fixed in that, please inform us. http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?atid=1698&group_id=426&func=browse Regards, Dan This communication is the property of Qwest and may contain confidential or privileged information. Unauthorized use of this communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments.
on 25.05.2007 18:07
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 19:36 +0900, Urabe Shyouhei wrote: > It is going on 3 months since the last (and first) 1.8.6 release, so we > are now planning to make a patchlevel release for it. Currently the new > release is planned on 9th June (Japanese timezone). If you have anything > that should be fixed in that, please inform us. Will the thread.so fixes from ruby_1_8 be included? -mental
on 26.05.2007 19:50
Calamitas wrote: > Seems like the issue reported in [ruby-talk:248647] has not been > resolved yet in the ruby_1_8 branch. I've attached the patch again. Thank you, I was not aware of this thread.
on 26.05.2007 19:51
MenTaLguY wrote: > Will the thread.so fixes from ruby_1_8 be included? > Yes but there's another bug around it being reported ([ruby-dev:30653]). Nobu followed up with a patch (thanks) and I'm now seeing that.
on 26.05.2007 22:53
Hi, Urabe Shyouhei wrote: > Calamitas wrote: > >> Seems like the issue reported in [ruby-talk:248647] has not been >> resolved yet in the ruby_1_8 branch. I've attached the patch again. >> > > Thank you, I was not aware of this thread. > I've adopted your patch for Object#method into both ruby_1_8_6 and ruby_1_8_5 branches, but not for Method#inspect, as that did not seem like a logical bug to me. Discussions are welcomed. And wait knu (ruby_1_8 branch manager) for its adoption for ruby 1.8.7 and above.
on 26.05.2007 23:36
On 26/05/07, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote: > > > > I've adopted your patch for Object#method into both ruby_1_8_6 and > ruby_1_8_5 branches, but not for Method#inspect, as that did not seem > like a logical bug to me. Discussions are welcomed. And wait knu > (ruby_1_8 branch manager) for its adoption for ruby 1.8.7 and above. Method#inspect had no bug that I'm aware of; I only changed it to preserve its behavior. Building on the example of the OP in [ruby-talk:248647]: # Before the patch Baz.new.method(:boo).inspect #=> "#<Method: Baz(Bar)#boo>" # After the patch to only Object#method Baz.new.method(:boo).inspect #=> "#<Method: Baz(Foo)#boo>" # After the patch to both Object#method and Method#inspect Baz.new.method(:boo).inspect #=> "#<Method: Baz(Bar)#boo>" The method is really defined in Bar, not in Foo. A difference in the inspect string may not seem like a big deal, but people may rely on it, for instance to retrieve the defining class or module. Peter
on 28.05.2007 01:48
On May 25, 2007, at 03:36 , Urabe Shyouhei wrote: > It is going on 3 months since the last (and first) 1.8.6 release, > so we > are now planning to make a patchlevel release for it. Currently the > new > release is planned on 9th June (Japanese timezone). If you have > anything > that should be fixed in that, please inform us. bug 9300? I haven't checked to see if the fix went in or not as I've stuck with 1.8.5 until a newer release patches it.
on 28.05.2007 19:57
On 5/27/07, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@zenspider.com> wrote:
> bug 9300?
Same question here - from me and several hundred CruiseControl.rb
users stuck with 1.8.5 because of it.
on 30.05.2007 01:33
Hi, Ryan Davis wrote: > bug 9300? I haven't checked to see if the fix went in or not as I've > stuck with 1.8.5 until a newer release patches it. I believe this bug is fixed in both ruby_1_8 and ruby_1_8_6.
on 30.05.2007 01:37
Hi, Calamitas wrote: > # Before the patch > Baz.new.method(:boo).inspect #=> "#<Method: Baz(Bar)#boo>" > # After the patch to only Object#method > Baz.new.method(:boo).inspect #=> "#<Method: Baz(Foo)#boo>" > # After the patch to both Object#method and Method#inspect > Baz.new.method(:boo).inspect #=> "#<Method: Baz(Bar)#boo>" Ah, I know what you meant in that patch now. I'll apply it then. Thank you explaining.
on 30.05.2007 11:12
On 25/05/07, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote: > Hi all. > > It is going on 3 months since the last (and first) 1.8.6 release, so we > are now planning to make a patchlevel release for it. Currently the new > release is planned on 9th June (Japanese timezone). If you have anything > that should be fixed in that, please inform us. > I hope the build system fixes went in. It there something I can test to see if it builds out of the box? Thanks Michal
on 31.05.2007 04:53
Hi,
At Wed, 30 May 2007 18:12:34 +0900,
Michal Suchanek wrote in [ruby-core:11364]:
> I hope the build system fixes went in.
A patch to use ext/purelib.rb has been merged into 1.8.6
branch.
on 31.05.2007 14:26
Urabe Shyouhei wrote: > It is going on 3 months since the last (and first) 1.8.6 release, so we > are now planning to make a patchlevel release for it. Currently the new > release is planned on 9th June (Japanese timezone). If you have anything > that should be fixed in that, please inform us. This is really really minor but it would be nice if Time#to_date and Time#to_datetime (from date.rb) were made public. I don't know why they are private (doesn't seem very useful) but that causes a conflict with Rails' similarly-named helper methods. Daniel
on 06.06.2007 13:51
On 5/25/07, Urabe Shyouhei <shyouhei@ruby-lang.org> wrote: > Hi all. > > It is going on 3 months since the last (and first) 1.8.6 release, so we > are now planning to make a patchlevel release for it. Currently the new > release is planned on 9th June (Japanese timezone). If you have anything > that should be fixed in that, please inform us. I know I'm a bit late, however: I think patch 8437 would be nice to have in 1.8. http://rubyforge.org/tracker/?func=detail&atid=1700&aid=8437&group_id=426 J.
on 07.08.2007 22:54
On 2007-05-31 21:25:43 +0900, Daniel DeLorme wrote: > Urabe Shyouhei wrote: > > It is going on 3 months since the last (and first) 1.8.6 release, so we > > are now planning to make a patchlevel release for it. Currently the new > > release is planned on 9th June (Japanese timezone). If you have anything > > that should be fixed in that, please inform us. > > This is really really minor but it would be nice if Time#to_date and > Time#to_datetime (from date.rb) were made public. I don't know why they > are private (doesn't seem very useful) but that causes a conflict with > Rails' similarly-named helper methods. the methods are still private. i just checked date2-4.0.8 and the methods are not private there. is there any reason to keep them private in the builtin library? $ ruby -v ruby 1.8.6 (2007-06-07 patchlevel 36) [x86_64-linux] darix