Forum: Ruby Rails 1.1 Released

Announcement (2017-05-07): www.ruby-forum.com is now read-only since I unfortunately do not have the time to support and maintain the forum any more. Please see rubyonrails.org/community and ruby-lang.org/en/community for other Rails- und Ruby-related community platforms.
David I. (Guest)
on 2006-03-28 18:12
(Received via mailing list)
Ran across this article on digg.com about the release of Rails 1.1:



http://weblog.rubyonrails.com/articles/2006/03/28/...
d-respond_to-integration-tests-and-500-other-things



In case anyone might have missed it.



-Dave
julian (Guest)
on 2006-03-28 18:40
(Received via mailing list)
Your link does not work I think, I could be wrong  though ..??
David I. (Guest)
on 2006-03-28 18:44
(Received via mailing list)
Yeah, the link got cropped because the URL is so long.  Head over to
http://www.rubyonrails.org and look for a link in the red bar that
reads,
"New Release: Rails 1.1".

-Dave
David I. (Guest)
on 2006-03-28 18:49
(Received via mailing list)
DOH, that still doesn't work right (wish they'd update their main site).
The link may have been split in the original thread.  If you see two
lines,
cut and paste both lines as a single line in your browser address bar.
You
can also try this:

http://snipurl.com/oaw4


-Dave
John N. Alegre (Guest)
on 2006-03-28 19:39
(Received via mailing list)
David I. wrote:

> Ran across this article on digg.com about the release of Rails 1.1:
>
>
>
>
http://weblog.rubyonrails.com/articles/2006/03/28/...
> d-respond_to-integration-tests-and-500-other-things
>
>
>
> In case anyone might have missed it.
>
>
It is still not being installed by gem ???

john
David I. (Guest)
on 2006-03-28 19:46
(Received via mailing list)
>It is still not being installed by gem ???
>
>john

What do you mean?  I think gem installs rails:

Upgrading from 1.0

So with such a massive update, upgrading is going to be hell, right?
Wrong!
We've gone to painstaking lengths to ensure that upgrading from 1.0 will
be
as easy as pie. Here goes the steps:

Update to Rails 1.1:
gem install rails --include-dependencies
Update JavaScripts for RJS:
rake rails:update
That's pretty much it! If you're seeing any nastiness after upgrading,
it's
most likely due to a plugin that's incompatible with 1.1. See if the
author
hasn't updated it and otherwise force him to do so.

If you're on Ruby 1.8.2 with Windows, though, you'll want to upgrade to
the
1.8.4 (or the script/console will fail). And even if you're on another
platform, it's a good idea to upgrade to Ruby 1.8.4. We still support
1.8.2,
but might not in the next major release. So may as well get the
upgrading
with over with now.
Frank (Guest)
on 2006-03-28 22:09
(Received via mailing list)
David I. wrote:
> Ran across this article on digg.com about the release of Rails 1.1:
>
>
>

<http://weblog.rubyonrails.com/articles/2006/03/28/...

There. Now the URL should work most places. (Added <>)

-f
John N. Alegre (Guest)
on 2006-03-29 01:05
(Received via mailing list)
I get a hang at ...
info@libros:~/bin> gem install rails --include-dependencies
Attempting local installation of 'rails'
Local gem file not found: rails*.gem
Attempting remote installation of 'rails'
Updating Gem source index for: http://gems.rubyforge.org

never get past that!!!

That's what I mean
John N. Alegre (Guest)
on 2006-03-29 01:19
(Received via mailing list)
John N. Alegre wrote:

>
mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxiua cupla

I guess a lot of people are hitting rubyforge.  This did work after
waiting
10 min.

Sorry for the confusion.
john
David I. (Guest)
on 2006-03-29 01:40
(Received via mailing list)
Whew, I was running out of ideas.  ;)  Glad it's working now.

-Dave
Benjohn B. (Guest)
on 2006-03-29 03:22
(Received via mailing list)
On 28 Mar 2006, at 22:40, David I. wrote:

> Whew, I was running out of ideas.  ;)  Glad it's working now.

Still seems to be grinding though. I wonder if gems could also be
distributed through bit-torrent, or something?
Pete P. (Guest)
on 2006-03-29 03:26
(Received via mailing list)
What sort of bandwidth is needed? Perhaps I can help set up a mirror
service?

Cheers,


Pete
Benjohn B. (Guest)
on 2006-03-29 03:36
(Received via mailing list)
On 29 Mar 2006, at 00:26, Peter P. wrote:

> What sort of bandwidth is needed? Perhaps I can help set up a
> mirror service?

It's odd - a lot of the time seems to be taken up by updating the gem
info from the remote site. I think this took longer than actually
getting the gems down. :) The total time was not excessive though.
Pete P. (Guest)
on 2006-03-29 03:41
(Received via mailing list)
Perhaps it would be possible to mirror the gems as opposed to the site
itself? From what I can tell everything is coming from and relying on
one server on what appears ( forgive me if I'm mistaken ) to be a DSL
line. I've got servers and bandwidth spare in a datacentre, and I would
love to use it for something useful as opposed to sitting there idling
away....

Anyway, just a thought :)
James B. (Guest)
on 2006-03-29 04:22
(Received via mailing list)
Peter P. wrote:
> Perhaps it would be possible to mirror the gems as opposed to the site
> itself?

That is what happens now.  There are, I think, 6 gems mirrors.

--
James B.

"In Ruby, no one cares who your parents were, all they care
  about is if you know  what you are talking about."
   - Logan C.
Eric H. (Guest)
on 2006-03-29 06:32
(Received via mailing list)
On Mar 28, 2006, at 3:22 PM, Benjohn B. wrote:

> On 28 Mar 2006, at 22:40, David I. wrote:
>
>> Whew, I was running out of ideas.  ;)  Glad it's working now.
>
> Still seems to be grinding though. I wonder if gems could also be
> distributed through bit-torrent, or something?

There are better solutions already on the table.  The problem is that
the gem index is really big.  It doesn't need to be as big as it is.

--
Eric H. - removed_email_address@domain.invalid - http://blog.segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant

http://trackmap.robotcoop.com
Gregory S. (Guest)
on 2006-03-29 17:01
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 11:31:55AM +0900, Eric H. wrote:
} On Mar 28, 2006, at 3:22 PM, Benjohn B. wrote:
}
} >On 28 Mar 2006, at 22:40, David I. wrote:
} >
} >>Whew, I was running out of ideas.  ;)  Glad it's working now.
} >
} >Still seems to be grinding though. I wonder if gems could also be
} >distributed through bit-torrent, or something?
}
} There are better solutions already on the table.  The problem is that
} the gem index is really big.  It doesn't need to be as big as it is.

I suspect that most of it doesn't change very often (meaning that the
amount of change from day to day is pretty small, not that there are
large
pieces that never change). Perhaps rsync would be of use here.

} Eric H. - removed_email_address@domain.invalid - http://blog.segment7.net
--Greg
Jim W. (Guest)
on 2006-03-29 18:56
Gregory S. wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 11:31:55AM +0900, Eric H. wrote:
> } On Mar 28, 2006, at 3:22 PM, Benjohn B. wrote:
> }
> } >On 28 Mar 2006, at 22:40, David I. wrote:
> } >
> } >>Whew, I was running out of ideas.  ;)  Glad it's working now.
> } >
> } >Still seems to be grinding though. I wonder if gems could also be
> } >distributed through bit-torrent, or something?
> }
> } There are better solutions already on the table.  The problem is that
> } the gem index is really big.  It doesn't need to be as big as it is.
>
> I suspect that most of it doesn't change very often (meaning that the
> amount of change from day to day is pretty small, not that there are
> large
> pieces that never change). Perhaps rsync would be of use here.
>
> } Eric H. - removed_email_address@domain.invalid - http://blog.segment7.net
> --Greg

The CVS head of rubygems will do incremental downloads of the index
file.  We are working out the details of testing this on a large site
like RubyForge.

It's coming. :)

--
-- Jim W.
Tom C. (Guest)
on 2006-03-29 19:25
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 08:22 +0900, Benjohn B. wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2006, at 22:40, David I. wrote:
>
> > Whew, I was running out of ideas.  ;)  Glad it's working now.
>
> Still seems to be grinding though. I wonder if gems could also be
> distributed through bit-torrent, or something?

Yup, all gems and large files are served by mirrors:

http://rubyforge.org/credits/

The slowdown now is due to the size of the Gem index (and RubyForge's
limited bandwidth).  The Gem guys have a fix in the pipeline for the
former and I think the latter is being worked on as well...

Yours,

Tom
Tom C. (Guest)
on 2006-03-29 19:25
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 08:36 +0900, Benjohn B. wrote:
> On 29 Mar 2006, at 00:26, Peter P. wrote:
>
> > What sort of bandwidth is needed? Perhaps I can help set up a
> > mirror service?
>
> It's odd - a lot of the time seems to be taken up by updating the gem
> info from the remote site. I think this took longer than actually
> getting the gems down. :)

Exactly right.

Yours,

Tom
Tom C. (Guest)
on 2006-03-29 19:25
(Received via mailing list)
On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 08:41 +0900, Peter P. wrote:
> Perhaps it would be possible to mirror the gems as opposed to the site
> itself?

Yup, that's the way it's done now.

> From what I can tell everything is coming from and relying on
> one server on what appears ( forgive me if I'm mistaken ) to be a DSL
> line.

Hehe, the DSL line part is correct :-)

>  I've got servers and bandwidth spare in a datacentre, and I would
> love to use it for something useful as opposed to sitting there idling
> away....

Great!  Please join the support-mirrors list:

http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/support-mirrors

and we can discuss rsyncing and all that good stuff.  Thanks!

Yours,

Tom
This topic is locked and can not be replied to.