Draft schedule of Ruby 1.9.3

Em 11-05-2011 04:01, Lucas N. escreveu:

On 11/05/11 at 02:03 +0900, Rodrigo Rosenfeld R. wrote:

Hi Yugui, is there any plans for the next patch release of 1.9.2?

Currently, Ruby support is broken in Debian unstable, for instance.
It would be great to include a new patch release as soon as possible
containing this fix:

http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/4556
For clarification, the Ruby 1.9.2 package in Debian has already been fixed
by backporting a patch.

Yes, I’m not talking about the Debian packaged Ruby, but if you try to
install Ruby using source-code or RVM.

On 5/10/11 5:43 AM, Ryan D. wrote:

I’m a bit confused. I’m assuming that “Jan” should be “Jun” for the impl freeze.
Is that correct? If so, we’re talking about releasing 1.9.3 July/August of 2011.

I’m sorry, I did a mistake. s/Jan/Jun/g

On 5/10/11 12:49 PM, U.Nakamura wrote:

I think current trunk is too broken, but we can repair until
the end of Jun, maybe.

I didn’t noticed the breakage on windows.
Sure, I believe we can repair it until the deadline.

Also I have a good news. Now I have a windows environment at my home.
So I will be care about the status of win64 support better than before.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 5/10/11 5:43 AM, Ryan D. wrote:

I’m a bit confused. I’m assuming that “Jan” should be “Jun” for the impl freeze.
Is that correct? If so, we’re talking about releasing 1.9.3 July/August of 2011.

I’m sorry, I did a mistake. s/Jan/Jun/g

On 5/10/11 12:49 PM, U.Nakamura wrote:

I think current trunk is too broken, but we can repair until
the end of Jun, maybe.

I didn’t noticed the breakage on windows.
Sure, I believe we can repair it until the deadline.

Also I have a good news. Now I have a windows environment at my home.
So I will be care about the status of win64 support better than before.


Yuki S. (Yugui) [email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk3KeBIACgkQOXzH5JLb/AVN/QCeMH+ZdvgV4GCLnMvBIYUj2VJn
dm0An1yw67N+zdjbYOMeUJOKVAt8r/8X
=J5iy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Em 11-05-2011 09:14, Yuki S. (Yugui) escreveu:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 5/11/11 2:03 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld R. wrote:

For those unfamiliar with the problem, here is a summary.
Thank you. I agree I must backport the patch into ruby 1.9.2

Hi Yugui, is there any plans for the next patch release of 1.9.2?
I would like to release a new patch level of 1.9.2 within May. I am
selecting patches to apply and evaluating them.

Great news! Thanks!

$B$3$s$K$A$O!"$J$+$`$i(B($B$&(B)$B$G$9!#(B

In message “[ruby-dev:43520] Re: draft schedule of Ruby 1.9.3”
on May.11,2011 17:55:28, [email protected] wrote:

$B$&$A$N4D6-0MB8$+$b$7$l$J$$$N$G!"??LLL$KD4::$7$F$+$iJs9p!&(B

$BBP1~$NM=Dj$G$O$"$j$^$9!#(B

$B$&$A$N4D6-0MB8$G$7$?!#>C$7$^$7$?!#(B

$B$H$$$&$o$1$G8=:_(B9F2E$B!#(B
$B>.:j$5$s$N(B8F2E$B$H$N:9J,$O!">.:j$5$s$N4D6-0MB8$H$$$&$3$H$K$J$C(B
$B$F$k(B1$B7o$r=|$$$?>e$G!"(B

  1. Failure:
    test_nread(TestIOWait)
    [C:/Users/usa/ruby/trunk/test/io/wait/test_io_wait.rb:27]:
    <1> expected but was
    <0>.

  2. Failure:
    test_ready?(TestIOWait)
    [C:/Users/usa/ruby/trunk/test/io/wait/test_io_wait.rb:39]:
    Failed assertion, no message given.

  3. Failure:
    test_wait(TestIOWait)
    [C:/Users/usa/ruby/trunk/test/io/wait/test_io_wait.rb:51]:
    <#<Socket:fd 13>> expected but was
    .

$B$,DI2C$5$l$F$^$9!#(B
$B$3$l$i$b(Bio/wait$B$G$9$M!#(B

$B$=$l$G$O!#(B

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 5/11/11 2:03 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld R. wrote:

For those unfamiliar with the problem, here is a summary.

Thank you. I agree I must backport the patch into ruby 1.9.2

Hi Yugui, is there any plans for the next patch release of 1.9.2?

I would like to release a new patch level of 1.9.2 within May. I am
selecting patches to apply and evaluating them.

Also let me explain my plan about 1.9.1 and 1.9.2.

  • 1.9.1 is now released only for fixing security vulnerability.
    I have been hoping to maintain it better but I couldn’t.

    I will completely abandon 1.9.1 in October. I don’t release 1.9.1
    after the end of October even if a security issue is found in it.

  • I intend to continue maintenance of Ruby 1.9.2 for the present, maybe
    until Ruby 1.9.4 is released.

    I have a good news and a bad news. The bad news is that I had the same
    intention about 1.9.1 as 1.9.2 but I could not achieve it. The good news
    is, I believe I will succeed on this time because I got used to
    selecting and evaluating patches.


Yuki S. (Yugui) [email protected]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk3KfdAACgkQOXzH5JLb/AU2iQCghl6MU6aJ69I5QRfUSvKoGIhl
1K4AoJRxKGgo2BOjHAufb3uCstxgNZG+
=a84b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

$B$3$s$K$A$O!"$J$+$`$i(B($B$&(B)$B$G$9!#(B

In message “[ruby-dev:43513] Re: draft schedule of Ruby 1.9.3”
on May.10,2011 19:07:57, [email protected] wrote:

  1. Failure:
    test_wait_for_invalid_fd(TestWaitForSingleFD)
    [c:/ruby/trunk/test/-ext-/wait_for_single_fd/test_wait_for_single_fd.rb:27
    ]:
    Errno::EBADF expected but nothing was raised.

$B$3$l$O!“KM$,:G6a$$$l$?(BEric$B$N(B io/wait
$B%F%9%H$J$s$G$9$,!”([email protected]$7$$F0:n$,[email protected]$J$N$G(B usa
$B$5$s$N8+2r$,M_$7$$!#(B

$B$(!<$H!"%F%9%H$r8+$k$H!"(Bclose$B$5$l$?(Bfd$B$KBP$7$F(Bwait$B$7$?$iNc30$,(B
$B5/$-$F$[$7$$(B?

$B$=$b$=$b(Bselect(2)$B$O(Bclose$B$5$l$?(Bfd$B$rEO$5$l$F$b(BEBADF$B$K$O$J$s$J$$(B
$B$G$9$h$M(B? $B0c$$$^$7$?$C$1(B?
$B$=$&$$$&;EMM$,$*K>$_$J$i(Bselect_single()$B$"$?$j$r$=$&$$$&5sF0$K(B
$BJQ$($J$$$H$$$+$s$N$G$O$J$$$+$H;W$$$^$9$1$I(B…

$B$J$*!"(Bpoll(2)$BHG$b<+A0$G(BPOLLNVAL$B$r(BEBADF$B$KJQ49$7$?>e$G(BRuby$BNc30(B
$B$K$7$F$k$h$&$G$9$,!"$I$&$;Nc30Ej$2$k$J$i(BIOError$B$NJ}$,$$$$$s$8(B
$B$c$J$$$+$H;d$O;W$$$^$9!#(B

$B$=$l$G$O!#(B

2011$BG/(B5$B7n(B12$BF|(B15:29 U.Nakamura [email protected]:

$B$3$l$O!“KM$,:G6a$$$l$?(BEric$B$N(B io/wait
$B%F%9%H$J$s$G$9$,!”([email protected]$7$$F0:n$,[email protected]$J$N$G(B usa
$B$5$s$N8+2r$,M_$7$$!#(B

$B$(!<$H!"%F%9%H$r8+$k$H!"(Bclose$B$5$l$?(Bfd$B$KBP$7$F(Bwait$B$7$?$iNc30$,(B
$B5/$-$F$[$7$$(B?

$B$=$b$=$b(Bselect(2)$B$O(Bclose$B$5$l$?(Bfd$B$rEO$5$l$F$b(BEBADF$B$K$O$J$s$J$$(B

$B$G$9$h$M(B? $B0c$$$^$7$?$C$1(B?

Linux $B$*$h$S(B POSIX$B=5r(B $B$J%7%9%F%$O(BEBADF$B$K$J$j$^$9!#[email protected]$K$J$C$?$N$O(B

$B#1!K(B $B$=$b$=$bJL%9%l%C%I$,F1;~$K(Bopen$B$7$?$i!"$b$&L58z(Bfd
$B$8$c$J$/$J$C$F$7$^$&[email protected]$+$i3HD%%i%$%V%i%j$O(BEBADF$B$r2>Dj$9$k$Y$-$G$O$J$$(B
$B#2!K(B
[email protected])8B$H$7$F!"@h$K(Bselect$B$7$FJL%9%l%C%I$,(Bclose$B$7$?$H$-$K(Bselect$B$O5/>2$7$J$$(B
$B!J$J$<$J$i%j%U%!%l%s%9%+%&%s%HFbItE*$K0l8D>e$,$C$F$7$^$C$F$k$+$i8!CN$G$-$L!K(B

$B$G!"$3$l$OHs8x3+(BAPI
$B$r$`$j$d$j%F%9%H$7$F$k%F%9%H%1!<%9$J$N$G!"(Bpoll $B$H(B select
$B$G:90[$,=P$J$$$3$H$r3NG’$9$k$3$H$,<g4c$K$J$C$F$k$s$G$9!#(B
[email protected]‘Hs$O$5$F$$/$H$7$F!"4pK\E$K%F%9%H$O$h$[$I%"%l$8$c$J$$$+$.$j%^!<%8$7$F$d$C$F$b$h$+$m$&$H;W$&$N$G%^!<%8$7$A$c$$$^$7$?!#!J(Btest/-ext-
$B$J$s$F%"%l%2%F%9%H$NAc7"$J$s$+$i:#99:[email protected]$C$F$b$M$’!&!&$H$+$H$+!K(B

$B$=$&$$$&;EMM$,$*K>$_$J$i(Bselect_single()$B$"$?$j$r$=$&$$$&5sF0$K(B
$BJQ$($J$$$H$$$+$s$N$G$O$J$$$+$H;W$$$^$9$1$I(B…

$B$J$*!"(Bpoll(2)$BHG$b<+A0$G(BPOLLNVAL$B$r(BEBADF$B$KJQ49$7$?>e$G(BRuby$BNc30(B
$B$K$7$F$k$h$&$G$9$,!"$I$&$;Nc30Ej$2$k$J$i(BIOError$B$NJ}$,$$$$$s$8(B
$B$c$J$$$+$H;d$O;W$$$^$9!#(B

$B$H$$$&;EMM$K$9$k$H$7$F$b!"(BIO.select$B$N%k!<%H$r9M$($k$H(B
$B%W%i%C%H%U%)!<%`$,(BEBADF$B$rJV$7$?$H$3$m$r%-%c%C%A$7$F(BIOError$B$KJQ49$9$k$3$H$K$J$k$H;W$$$^$9!#(B
$B$b$7$/$O!"([email protected]$1Nc30>e$,$i$J$$$3$H$r;EMM$K$7$F!"$3$N%F%9%H$r%9%-%C%W$5$;$k$+!#(B

$B!t(B $B$H$3$m$G!"$J$s$G(B Windows $B$N(B select $B$K(B pipe
$B$o$?$7$FF0$$$F$$$k$N$+M}2r=PMh$J$$$N$G(B
$B!t(B $B:#EY65$($F$/[email protected]$5$$(B

test_wait(TestIOWait) [C:/Users/usa/ruby/trunk/test/io/wait/test_io_wait.rb:51]:
<#<Socket:fd 13>> expected but was
.

$B$"$l!"$3$N#3$D$O(BSocketPair$B$r;H$&$h$&$K$J$C$F$+$i!"$&$A$G$O=P$J$/$J$C$?$s$G$9$1$I!#!#!#(B
socket pair $B$N4{[email protected])8B$G$J$K$+?4Ev$?$j$"$j$^$;$s$+!)(B
Windows$B$N%P!<%8%g%s0MB8$H$+$G!#$"!"$&$A$O(B Vista$B$G$9!#(B

arton$B$G$9!#(B

VC++2010 (WIN32) $B$O(B $B#6(BF3E$B$G$7$?!#(B

$BCfB<$5$s$N(Btest_wait$B$N$O=P$F$$$^$;$s!J(BWindows7$B!K(B

Skip$B$b=P$7$F$$$k$N$G!"(Bn)$B$O=gHV$K$J$C$F$$$^$;$s!#(B
E$B$O!"$3$l$G$9$,!"(Bopenssl$B$N%P!<%8%g%s$H$+$K0MB8$7$F$$$k$N$+$J!)(B
4) Error:
test_write_nonblock(OpenSSL::TestPair):
Errno::ECONNRESET: An existing connection was forcibly closed by the
remote host.
C:/Users/arton/Documents/ruby/build/.ext/common/openssl/buffering.rb:53:in
sysread' C:/Users/arton/Documents/ruby/build/.ext/common/openssl/buffering.rb:53:infill_rbuff’
C:/Users/arton/Documents/ruby/build/.ext/common/openssl/buffering.rb:94:in
read' C:/Users/arton/Documents/ruby/trunk/test/openssl/test_pair.rb:176:inblock in test_write_nonblock’
C:/Users/arton/Documents/ruby/trunk/test/openssl/test_pair.rb:44:in
ssl_pair' C:/Users/arton/Documents/ruby/trunk/test/openssl/test_pair.rb:164:intest_write_nonblock’

$B$3$s$K$A$O!"$J$+$`$i(B($B$&(B)$B$G$9!#(B

In message “[ruby-dev:43536] Re: draft schedule of Ruby 1.9.3”
on May.12,2011 21:13:22, [email protected] wrote:

$B$"$l!"$3$N#3$D$O(BSocketPair$B$r;H$&$h$&$K$J$C$F$+$i!"$&$A$G$O=P$J$/$J$C$?$s$G$9$1$I!#!#!#(B

socket pair $B$N4{[email protected])8B$G$J$K$+?4Ev$?$j$"$j$^$;$s$+!)(B
Windows$B$N%P!<%8%g%s0MB8$H$+$G!#$"!"$&$A$O(B Vista$B$G$9!#(B

$B$"$l!"[email protected]$m!#(B
rb_w32_socketpair()$B$r=q$$$?$N$O;d$G$9$1$I!"FC$K?4Ev$?$j$O$J$$(B
$B$G$9!#(B

$B$A$J$_$K(Bx64-mswin64 + Windows7(64bit)$B$G$9!#(B

$B$=$l$G$O!#(B

arton$B$G$9!#(B

Windows7(64) + x64-mswin64_100 $B$G$b!"=P$^$;$s$G$7$?!#(B

9111 tests, 1876833 assertions, 5 failures, 3 errors, 84 skips

ruby -v
ruby 1.9.3dev (2011-05-12) [x64-mswin64_100]

  1. Failure:
    test_wait_for_invalid_fd(TestWaitForSingleFD)
    $B$O!"=P$J$+$C$?$N$G$9$,!"[email protected]:Q$_$+$J!#(B

$B$3$s$K$A$O!"$J$+$`$i(B($B$&(B)$B$G$9!#(B

In message “[ruby-dev:43535] Re: draft schedule of Ruby 1.9.3”
on May.12,2011 21:10:46, [email protected] wrote:

$B$3$l$O!“KM$,:G6a$$$l$?(BEric$B$N(B io/wait
$B%F%9%H$J$s$G$9$,!”([email protected]$7$$F0:n$,[email protected]$J$N$G(B usa
$B$5$s$N8+2r$,M_$7$$!#(B

$B$(!<$H!"%F%9%H$r8+$k$H!"(Bclose$B$5$l$?(Bfd$B$KBP$7$F(Bwait$B$7$?$iNc30$,(B
$B5/$-$F$[$7$$(B?

$B$=$b$=$b(Bselect(2)$B$O(Bclose$B$5$l$?(Bfd$B$rEO$5$l$F$b(BEBADF$B$K$O$J$s$J$$(B

$B$G$9$h$M(B? $B0c$$$^$7$?$C$1(B?

Linux $B$*$h$S(B POSIX$B=5r(B $B$J%7%9%F%$O(BEBADF$B$K$J$j$^$9!#(B

Linux$B$O$I$&$G$b$$$$$G$9$,(B($BNd$?$$(B)$B!"(BPOSIX$B$G$=$&$J$i(BWindows$BB&$b(B
$B9g$o$;$J$$$H$$$1$J$$$G$9$M$(!#(B

$B$H;W$C$F(Bclose$B$5$l$?(Bfd$B$,$"$C$?$i(BEBADF$B$K$9$k%3!<%I$rF~$l$F$_$?(B
$B$i!"$J$s$+(Btest-all$B$G%V%m%C%/$7$^$/$k$s$G$9$1$I(B…
$B;2$C$?$J(B…

$B$^$"!"$b$&$A$g$C$H9M$($F$_$^$9!#(B

$B!t(B $B$H$3$m$G!"$J$s$G(B Windows $B$N(B select $B$K(B pipe
$B$o$?$7$FF0$$$F$$$k$N$+M}2r=PMh$J$$$N$G(B
$B!t(B $B:#EY65$($F$/[email protected]$5$$(B

Windows$B$N(Bselect$B$KEO$9A0$K<+NO$G8+$F$k$+$i!#(B

$B$=$l$G$O!#(B

$B$3$s$K$A$O!"$J$+$`$i(B($B$&(B)$B$G$9!#(B

In message “[ruby-dev:43547] Re: draft schedule of Ruby 1.9.3”
on May.14,2011 09:58:35, [email protected] wrote:

Windows7(64) + x64-mswin64_100 $B$G$b!"=P$^$;$s$G$7$?!#(B

$B$O$F!#$J$s$G$8$c$m!#(B

  1. Failure:
    test_wait_for_invalid_fd(TestWaitForSingleFD)
    $B$O!"=P$J$+$C$?$N$G$9$,!"[email protected]:Q$_$+$J!#(B

$B$3$C$A$O(B r31543 $B$G(B($B>lEv$?$jE*$K(B)[email protected]$7$^$7$?!#(B

$B$=$l$G$O!#(B

2011$BG/(B5$B7n(B14$BF|(B9:58 arton [email protected]:

$B$O!"=P$J$+$C$?$N$G$9$,!"[email protected]:Q$_$+$J!#(B
$B$3$l$8$c$J$$$+$J!)(B

commit 425b30bc7898f4fe8a65a5481bb5994eccdb59be
Author: usa [email protected]
Date: Fri May 13 06:24:36 2011 +0000

* win32/win32.c (rb_w32_select): check invalid handle before doing
  select operations.  see [ruby-dev:43513], [ruby-dev:43535]


git-svn-id: svn+ssh://ci.ruby-lang.org/ruby/[email protected]

b2dd03c8-39d4-4d8f-98ff-823fe69b080e

Patch selecting is little late because I caught a cold.
I am still trying to release 1.9.2 within May but it will possibly be
late.

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld R.

$B$?$k$$$G$9!#(B

$B$3$s$K$A$O!"$J$+$`$i(B($B$&(B)$B$G$9!#(B

In message “[ruby-dev:43547] Re: draft schedule of Ruby 1.9.3”
on May.14,2011 09:58:35, [email protected] wrote:

Windows7(64) + x64-mswin64_100 $B$G$b!"=P$^$;$s$G$7$?!#(B

$B$O$F!#$J$s$G$8$c$m!#(B

$B$"$^$jM-0U5A$J>pJs$8$c$J$$$+$b$7$l$^$;$s$,!"(B
$B;d$N$H$3$m$G$b(B[ruby-dev:43513]$B$N(Bkosaki$B$5$s$N%F%9%H$H<:GT!"%(%i!<$,F1$8>uBV$G$9!#(B
$B$J$N$G(BTestIOWait$B$K4X$9$k$b$N$O=P$F$$$^$;$s$M!#(B

$B4D6-$O(B
WindowsXP(32bit) + mswin32_100
$B$G$9!#(B

On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Yugui [email protected] wrote:

Patch selecting is little late because I caught a cold.
I am still trying to release 1.9.2 within May but it will possibly be late.

Hope you’re feeling better now.

I’m reviewing latest tcltk modifications from trunk and would love
these be backported to 1.9.2

If deadline has been extended, you have any estimation when that is
going to happen?

This forum is not affiliated to the Ruby language, Ruby on Rails framework, nor any Ruby applications discussed here.

| Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Remote Ruby Jobs