Forum: Ruby-dev draft schedule of Ruby 1.9.3

1e7e007723cfe59320d994a7db4ab4cf?d=identicon&s=25 Yuki Sonoda (Yugui) (Guest)
on 2011-05-09 17:44
(Received via mailing list)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi,

First of all, I am sorry for proposing a plan to Ruby 1.9.3 so late.
I missed proposing it because of the earthquake in Japan.

Now Ruby 1.9.3 is much stable than on Feb.  Its feature is getting
stable. It's time to decide a plan to release Ruby 1.9.3.

I propose the following rough schedule.
* The end of May: feature freeze.  create ruby_1_9_3 branch.
* The end of Jan: implementation freeze.  don't change without
permission after that.
* The end of Jul or early Aug: release Ruby 1.9.3

The possible release blocker is the recent improvement of GVL.  It is a
change in the core piece of Ruby and I would like to have it in Ruby
1.9.3 if possible.
I believe Kosaki-san is recently reviewing locks in YARV.  Will it have
finished on the end of Jun?

What do you think about the schedule?

- --
Yuki Sonoda (Yugui)  <yugui@yugui.jp>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk3IC/MACgkQOXzH5JLb/AU/LACeIhX4xdLsjaujfXn5nZ/17Gac
SGIAoIfVUEubZG+n5ewnQRajKY1Kswl3
=j8Ig
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
E7cff3cfd41c495e1012227d7dc24202?d=identicon&s=25 Luis Lavena (luislavena)
on 2011-05-09 18:08
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Yuki Sonoda (Yugui) <yugui@yugui.jp>
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>

Hello,

> * The end of Jul or early Aug: release Ruby 1.9.3
>
> The possible release blocker is the recent improvement of GVL. It is a
> change in the core piece of Ruby and I would like to have it in Ruby
> 1.9.3 if possible.
> I believe Kosaki-san is recently reviewing locks in YARV. Will it have
> finished on the end of Jun?
>
> What do you think about the schedule?
>

I like the schedule, as today, 32bits builds of Ruby under MinGW
generates:

ruby 1.9.3dev (2011-05-09 trunk 31496) [i386-mingw32]
9618 tests, 1880064 assertions, 22 failures, 14 errors, 83 skips

https://gist.github.com/962780

There are some segfaults and stalls during the process, which turns
the automation of ruby-trunk impossible for us.

I would like to work on improve that and correct some of the false
positive tests.

1.9.3 solves some performance issues found in 1.9.2 on load and
require which had a huge impact on adoption of 1.9.2 on Windows.

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is the API version. It will
still be 1.9.1?

Beyond that, eagerly looking forward this release.
Be30361bb0b0c495e3077db43ad84b56?d=identicon&s=25 Aaron Patterson (Guest)
on 2011-05-09 18:25
(Received via mailing list)
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:43:46AM +0900, Yuki Sonoda (Yugui) wrote:
>
> finished on the end of Jun?
>
> What do you think about the schedule?

This release schedule looks great.  I am excited about the 1.9.3
release!

I am curious about the 1.9.2 patch level release though.  I've filed
several
tickets to backport some of my commits to 1.9.2, but it seems only a few
have
been backported.

Is there a release schedule for 1.9.2?  Can I help with backporting my
commits to 1.9.2?

Thank you for you hard work Yugui!
8daae60058e7022f2810d1059243abfd?d=identicon&s=25 Zeno Davatz (zeno_d)
on 2011-05-09 18:28
Can you shed some light on what will happen with iconv in Ruby 1.9.3 -
will it really be gone as mentioned here:
https://github.com/flori/json/pull/53 by sorah?

Best
Zeno
1644b4d748356fe448fd398e2973a7ca?d=identicon&s=25 Rohit Arondekar (rohit-arondekar)
on 2011-05-09 18:47
> * The end of Jan: implementation freeze.  don't change without
> permission after that.

I think you mean the end of June? :)

Cheers,
Rohit Arondekar
http://rohitarondekar.com
5a837592409354297424994e8d62f722?d=identicon&s=25 Ryan Davis (Guest)
on 2011-05-09 22:43
(Received via mailing list)
On May 9, 2011, at 08:43 , Yuki Sonoda (Yugui) wrote:

>
> I propose the following rough schedule.
> * The end of May: feature freeze.  create ruby_1_9_3 branch.
> * The end of Jan: implementation freeze.  don't change without
> permission after that.
> * The end of Jul or early Aug: release Ruby 1.9.3

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.

There is going to be stuff for rubygems that we won't have done until
the end of June due to personal schedules and timing.
5a837592409354297424994e8d62f722?d=identicon&s=25 Ryan Davis (Guest)
on 2011-05-10 00:41
(Received via mailing list)
On May 9, 2011, at 08:43 , Yuki Sonoda (Yugui) wrote:

> The possible release blocker is the recent improvement of GVL.  It is a
> change in the core piece of Ruby and I would like to have it in Ruby
> 1.9.3 if possible.
> I believe Kosaki-san is recently reviewing locks in YARV.  Will it have
> finished on the end of Jun?

I think this is a showstopper and needs to be addressed asap:

https://img.skitch.com/20110501-ghj5gsha7twq58wits...

Xavier's emails have gone all but ignored.
9fa3062ff437ed28f40509a947b6d6c5?d=identicon&s=25 KOSAKI Motohiro (Guest)
on 2011-05-10 02:40
(Received via mailing list)
Hi

> First of all, I am sorry for proposing a plan to Ruby 1.9.3 so late.
> I missed proposing it because of the earthquake in Japan.
>
> Now Ruby 1.9.3 is much stable than on Feb.  Its feature is getting
> stable. It's time to decide a plan to release Ruby 1.9.3.
>
> I propose the following rough schedule.
> * The end of May: feature freeze.  create ruby_1_9_3 branch.
> * The end of Jan: implementation freeze.  don't change without

                        Jun?

> permission after that.
> * The end of Jul or early Aug: release Ruby 1.9.3
>
> The possible release blocker is the recent improvement of GVL.  It is a
> change in the core piece of Ruby and I would like to have it in Ruby
> 1.9.3 if possible.
> I believe Kosaki-san is recently reviewing locks in YARV.  Will it have
> finished on the end of Jun?

Sure. At least, I believe so. :)
9fa3062ff437ed28f40509a947b6d6c5?d=identicon&s=25 KOSAKI Motohiro (Guest)
on 2011-05-10 02:45
(Received via mailing list)
> > The possible release blocker is the recent improvement of GVL.  It is a
> > change in the core piece of Ruby and I would like to have it in Ruby
> > 1.9.3 if possible.
> > I believe Kosaki-san is recently reviewing locks in YARV.  Will it have
> > finished on the end of Jun?
>
> Sure. At least, I believe so. :)


$B$0$X!#2q<R$N%"%I%l%9$O(Bruby-core$B$KEPO?$7$F$J$$$NK:$l$F$F%a!<%k%j%W%i%$$7$F$7$^$C$?!#(B
$B$3$N%a!<%k$O(Bruby-core$B$KFO$$$F$$$J$$$N$G2H$K5"$C$F$+$iEj$2D>$7$^$9(B
orz

$B$H$3$m$G!"(B

>
> Note that the mail should not be encoded in base64.

$B$@$($b$s$5$s$,%(%i!<%a%C%;!<%8$G(B <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
$B$,(Bblah blah blah $B$H(B
$B$*$C$7$c$i$l$F$$$k$N$O8mM6F3$G$O$J$$$+$H;W$&$N$G$9$,!"$3$&$$$&$N$ND{@5$O(B
$BC/$K$*4j$$$9$l$P$$$$$s$G$7$g$&$M!)(B
8cbb39dadafaf2287a83a13ee4981ec9?d=identicon&s=25 U.Nakamura (Guest)
on 2011-05-10 05:50
(Received via mailing list)
Hello,

In message "[ruby-dev:43502] draft schedule of Ruby 1.9.3"
    on May.10,2011 00:43:46, <yugui@yugui.jp> wrote:
> What do you think about the schedule?

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


BTW, I'm planning to introduce a binary incompatibility into
ruby 1.9.3. (see [ruby-dev:43450])
Please answer Go or No Go, yugui-san.


Regards
18a797893e6768e048c1d15429f96bb4?d=identicon&s=25 Shugo Maeda (Guest)
on 2011-05-10 06:20
(Received via mailing list)
$BA0ED$G$9!#(B

2011$BG/(B5$B7n(B10$BF|(B9:44 KOSAKI Motohiro
<kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>:
> $B$H$3$m$G!"(B
(snip)
> $B$@$($b$s$5$s$,%(%i!<%a%C%;!<%8$G(B <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org> $B$,(Bblah blah
blah $B$H(B
> $B$*$C$7$c$i$l$F$$$k$N$O8mM6F3$G$O$J$$$+$H;W$&$N$G$9$,!"$3$&$$$&$N$ND{@5$O(B
> $BC/$K$*4j$$$9$l$P$$$$$s$G$7$g$&$M!)(B

$BD>$7$H$-$^$7$?!#(B
9fa3062ff437ed28f40509a947b6d6c5?d=identicon&s=25 KOSAKI Motohiro (Guest)
on 2011-05-10 07:10
(Received via mailing list)
> $BA0ED$G$9!#(B
>
> 2011$BG/(B5$B7n(B10$BF|(B9:44 KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>:
> > $B$H$3$m$G!"(B
> (snip)
> > $B$@$($b$s$5$s$,%(%i!<%a%C%;!<%8$G(B <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org> $B$,(Bblah blah
blah $B$H(B
> > $B$*$C$7$c$i$l$F$$$k$N$O8mM6F3$G$O$J$$$+$H;W$&$N$G$9$,!"$3$&$$$&$N$ND{@5$O(B
> > $BC/$K$*4j$$$9$l$P$$$$$s$G$7$g$&$M!)(B
>
> $BD>$7$H$-$^$7$?!#(B

$BBP1~$"$j$,$H$&$4$6$$$^$9!*(B
0cd15ae40ab1548ee84666c4435930ba?d=identicon&s=25 Marco Ceresa (Guest)
on 2011-05-10 10:50
(Received via mailing list)
On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 5:43 PM, Yuki Sonoda (Yugui) <yugui@yugui.jp>
wrote:

> Now Ruby 1.9.3 is much stable than on Feb. Its feature is getting
> stable. It's time to decide a plan to release Ruby 1.9.3.
>
> I propose the following rough schedule.
> * The end of May: feature freeze. create ruby_1_9_3 branch.
> * The end of Jan: implementation freeze. don't change without
> permission after that.
> * The end of Jul or early Aug: release Ruby 1.9.3

Great news, thanks for that.  It sounds like a good plan, I'm sure
we'll be all very excited.

I wonder if there is still time for the feature proposal regarding
IPAddr and IPAddress [1] for Ruby 1.9.3.

Looks like nothing has been done so far: is there anything I can do to
help the migration, beside keep improving the library itself?

Best regards,
Marco

[1] http://redmine.ruby-lang.org/issues/4569
02da662c083396641da96c1d32fc86ed?d=identicon&s=25 KOSAKI Motohiro (Guest)
on 2011-05-10 12:08
(Received via mailing list)
(ruby-core$B$O$:$7$^$7$?!K(B

2011/5/10 U.Nakamura <usa@garbagecollect.jp>:
> Hello,
>
> In message "[ruby-dev:43502] draft schedule of Ruby 1.9.3"
>    on May.10,2011 00:43:46, <yugui@yugui.jp> wrote:
>> What do you think about the schedule?
>
> I think current trunk is too broken, but we can repair until
> the end of Jun, maybe.

too broken$B$H$$$o$l$k$H5$$K$J$k$N$H!"0lHV2u$7$F$=$&$J$N$OKM$@$C$?(B
$B$N$G$A$g$$$H3NG'$7$F$_$^$7$?!#(B8F2E
$B$;$C$+$/$J$N$G$A$g$$$HJ,N`$7$F$_$^$9!#(B


  1) Failure:
test_binary(TestIO_M17N) [c:/ruby/trunk/test/ruby/test_io_m17n.rb:1728]:
<"a\nb\rc\r\nd\n"> expected but was
<"a\nb\nc\nd\n">.

$B$7$P$i$/A0$K!"OCBj$K$J$C$F$$$?9TKvLdBj$N0l4S$H;W$o$l$k!#$J$+$@$5$s(B

  2) Failure:
test_read_newline_conversion_with_encoding_conversion(TestIO_M17N)
[c:/ruby/trunk/test/ruby/test_io_m17n.rb:1505]:
<"a\r\nb\r\n"> expected but was
<"a\nb\n">.

$B$J$+$@$5$s(B

  3) Failure:
test_unknown_encoding(TestIconv::Basic)
[c:/ruby/trunk/test/iconv/test_basic.rb:54]:
[Iconv::InvalidEncoding] exception expected, not
Class: <Iconv::BrokenLibrary>
Message: <"iconv(\"utf-8\", \"X-UKNOWN\")">
---Backtrace---
c:/ruby/trunk/test/iconv/test_basic.rb:54:in `iconv'
c:/ruby/trunk/test/iconv/test_basic.rb:54:in `block in
test_unknown_encoding'
---------------

$B$3$l$OKM$,(Bwindows $BHG(B
libiconv$B$r$A$c$s$H%S%k%I$G$-$F$J$$$@$1$J$N$GL5;k$7$F$/$@$5$$(B


  4) Error:
test_capture3_flip(TestOpen3):
Errno::EACCES: Permission denied -
C:/Users/kosaki/AppData/Local/Temp/ruby-test20110510-3532-4090z8
    c:/ruby/trunk/build/.ext/common/win32ole.rb:13:in `call'
    c:/ruby/trunk/build/.ext/common/win32ole.rb:13:in `block in
initialize'

?
$B$J$K$3$l(B

  5) Failure:
test_commandline(TestOpen3) [c:/ruby/trunk/test/test_open3.rb:64]:
<"quux\n"> expected but was
<"quux\r\n">.

$B$J$+$@$5$s(B

  6) Failure:
test_include_file(TestRDocMarkupPreProcess)
[c:/ruby/trunk/test/rdoc/test_rdoc_markup_pre_process.rb:48]:
Expected "Regular expressions (<i>regexp</i>s) are patterns which
describe the\r\ncontents of a string.\r\n", not "Regul
ar expressions (<i>regexp</i>s) are patterns which describe
the\ncontents of a string.\n".

$B$J$+$@$5$s(B

  7) Failure:
test_include_file_encoding_incompatible(TestRDocMarkupPreProcess)
[c:/ruby/trunk/test/rdoc/test_rdoc_markup_pre_process.
rb:72]:
Expected "?\r\n", not "?\n".

$B$J$+$@$5$s(B

  8) Failure:
test_require_with_unc(TestRequire)
[c:/ruby/trunk/test/ruby/test_require.rb:95]:
Failed assertion, no message given.

$B$3$l$OKM$N4D6-8GM-$NLdBj$@$H@N$-$$$?5-21$,$"$k(B

  9) Error:
test_abort_on_exception(TestThread):
IOError: stream closed
    c:/ruby/trunk/test/ruby/envutil.rb:60:in `read'
    c:/ruby/trunk/test/ruby/envutil.rb:60:in `block in invoke_ruby'
    c:/ruby/trunk/build/.ext/common/win32ole.rb:13:in `call'
    c:/ruby/trunk/build/.ext/common/win32ole.rb:13:in `block in
initialize'

rb_thread_io_blocking_region()$BLdBj$K$7$+8+$($J$$$N$G$J$+$@$5$s(B

 10) 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$$$l$?(BEric$B$N(B io/wait
$B%F%9%H$J$s$G$9$,!"(BWindows$B$G$N@5$7$$F0:n$,ITL@$J$N$G(B usa
$B$5$s$N8+2r$,M_$7$$!#(B


9496 tests, 1877750 assertions, 8 failures, 2 errors, 85 skips
NMAKE : fatal error U1077: '.\ruby.exe' : $B%j%?!<%s(B $B%3!<%I(B '0xa'
Stop.


$B0J30$HD>$;$=$&$J5$$,$7$F$-$?!#(B
02da662c083396641da96c1d32fc86ed?d=identicon&s=25 KOSAKI Motohiro (Guest)
on 2011-05-10 12:09
(Received via mailing list)
Hi

> The possible release blocker is the recent improvement of GVL. It is a
> change in the core piece of Ruby and I would like to have it in Ruby
> 1.9.3 if possible.
> I believe Kosaki-san is recently reviewing locks in YARV. Will it have
> finished on the end of Jun?

Sure. At least, I believe so. :)
2abdb50caf0dc5b510330f68b02db8e4?d=identicon&s=25 Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas (Guest)
on 2011-05-10 19:03
(Received via mailing list)
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 those unfamiliar with the problem, here is a summary.

Debian has disabled SSLv2 in their last package libssl1.0.0 due to
security vulnerabilities (Ruby can be installed with 0.9.8 which was
compiled with SSLv2 enabled).

Ruby 1.9.2-p180 does not provide an option for compiling it without
SSLv2 support. RVM allows compiling openssl from source and using it
with:

http://beginrescueend.com/packages/openssl/

This has at least two problems:

1 - People concerned about security might not want to enable SSLv2;
2 - That is what most concerns me. It gets almost impossible to use the
pg gem in Debian unstable:

That is due libpq depending on system libssl which is not compatible
with the openssl provided by RVM which Ruby has been compiled against.
This results in segmentation fault keeping it very hard to have, for
instance, a Rails 3 application with PostgreSQL databases in Debian
unstable.

If #4556 is included in the next patch release to 1.9.2 this would be
much simpler to deal with.

Is there any schedule for that?

Best regards,

Rodrigo.

Em 09-05-2011 12:43, Yuki Sonoda (Yugui) escreveu:
5a20e69eb2f7cf5fea92241d4095f4c2?d=identicon&s=25 Xavier Shay (xavier-shay)
on 2011-05-11 04:10
(Received via mailing list)
On 10/05/11 8:40 AM, Ryan Davis wrote:
>
> https://img.skitch.com/20110501-ghj5gsha7twq58wits...
for further consideration, 1.9.3 is *twice* as bad again as 1.9.2:
https://img.skitch.com/20110511-er8ah66iq5pi1yqyyg...

I plan to look into this further on the weekend.

Cheers,
Xavier
F267dbf0d0d9d0648f2956a19e7caf92?d=identicon&s=25 Lucas Nussbaum (Guest)
on 2011-05-11 09:02
(Received via mailing list)
On 11/05/11 at 02:03 +0900, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas 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.

- Lucas
8cbb39dadafaf2287a83a13ee4981ec9?d=identicon&s=25 U.Nakamura (Guest)
on 2011-05-11 10:55
(Received via mailing list)
$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, <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote:
> too broken$B$H$$$o$l$k$H5$$K$J$k$N$H!"0lHV2u$7$F$=$&$J$N$OKM$@$C$?(B
> $B$N$G$A$g$$$H3NG'$7$F$_$^$7$?!#(B8F2E

$B$A$J$_$K!";d$N4D6-$O(Bfiddle$B$,;H$($k$N$G$9$,!"$=$$$D$,:G6a(BE$B$@$i(B
$B$1$K$J$C$F$F!"$=$l$r4^$a$F:#F|8=:_$G9g7W(B6F16E$B$G$9$M!#(B
$B$H$j$"$($:!"(BE$B$,(B2$B7e$H$+$"$C$?$i(Btoo
broken$B$H8@$o$l$F$b$7$c!<$J(B
$B$$$H;d$O;W$$$^$9!#(B

# $B$&$A$N4D6-0MB8$+$b$7$l$J$$$N$G!"??LLL\$KD4::$7$F$+$iJs9p!&(B
# $BBP1~$NM=Dj$G$O$"$j$^$9!#(B


$B$=$l$G$O!#(B
E97181961afa48102e3a28daab69b904?d=identicon&s=25 Masaki Suketa (Guest)
on 2011-05-11 12:39
(Received via mailing list)
$B=uED$G$9!#(B

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 07:07:57PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
>
>   4) Error:
> test_capture3_flip(TestOpen3):
> Errno::EACCES: Permission denied -
> C:/Users/kosaki/AppData/Local/Temp/ruby-test20110510-3532-4090z8
>     c:/ruby/trunk/build/.ext/common/win32ole.rb:13:in `call'
>     c:/ruby/trunk/build/.ext/common/win32ole.rb:13:in `block in initialize'
>
> ?
> $B$J$K$3$l(B

$B<j85$G%F%9%H$,$G$-$F$$$J$$$N$H!"(Btest_capture3_flip
$B$,2?$N%F%9%H$r$7$F$$$k$N$+(B
$BCN$i$J$$$N$G!"3'L\8!F$$,$D$+$J$$$N$G$9$,(B...
win32ole.rb$BB&$G!"(BThread#initialize $B$r:FDj5A$7$F$$$^$9!#(B
$B$=$l$,2?$+0-$5$7$F$^$9$+$M!)(B

  $B=uED(B $B2m5*(B
2abdb50caf0dc5b510330f68b02db8e4?d=identicon&s=25 Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas (Guest)
on 2011-05-11 13:01
(Received via mailing list)
Em 11-05-2011 04:01, Lucas Nussbaum escreveu:
> On 11/05/11 at 02:03 +0900, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas 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.
1e7e007723cfe59320d994a7db4ab4cf?d=identicon&s=25 Yuki Sonoda (Yugui) (Guest)
on 2011-05-11 13:57
(Received via mailing list)
On 5/10/11 5:43 AM, Ryan Davis 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.
1e7e007723cfe59320d994a7db4ab4cf?d=identicon&s=25 Yuki Sonoda (Yugui) (Guest)
on 2011-05-11 13:58
(Received via mailing list)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 5/10/11 5:43 AM, Ryan Davis 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 Sonoda (Yugui)  <yugui@yugui.jp>
-----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-----
1e7e007723cfe59320d994a7db4ab4cf?d=identicon&s=25 Yuki Sonoda (Yugui) (Guest)
on 2011-05-11 14:18
(Received via mailing list)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 5/11/11 2:03 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas 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 Sonoda (Yugui)  <yugui@yugui.jp>
-----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-----
2abdb50caf0dc5b510330f68b02db8e4?d=identicon&s=25 Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas (Guest)
on 2011-05-11 14:34
(Received via mailing list)
Em 11-05-2011 09:14, Yuki Sonoda (Yugui) escreveu:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 5/11/11 2:03 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas 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!
8cbb39dadafaf2287a83a13ee4981ec9?d=identicon&s=25 U.Nakamura (Guest)
on 2011-05-12 08:19
(Received via mailing list)
$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, <usa@garbagecollect.jp> 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
<nil>.

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


$B$=$l$G$O!#(B
8cbb39dadafaf2287a83a13ee4981ec9?d=identicon&s=25 U.Nakamura (Guest)
on 2011-05-12 08:30
(Received via mailing list)
$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, <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote:
>  10) 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$$$l$?(BEric$B$N(B io/wait
$B%F%9%H$J$s$G$9$,!"(BWindows$B$G$N@5$7$$F0:n$,ITL@$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$O!#(B
02da662c083396641da96c1d32fc86ed?d=identicon&s=25 KOSAKI Motohiro (Guest)
on 2011-05-12 14:11
(Received via mailing list)
2011$BG/(B5$B7n(B12$BF|(B15:29 U.Nakamura <usa@garbagecollect.jp>:
>> $B$3$l$O!"KM$,:G6a$$$l$?(BEric$B$N(B io/wait
$B%F%9%H$J$s$G$9$,!"(BWindows$B$G$N@5$7$$F0:n$,ITL@$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!#JdB-$9$k2a5n$K5DO@$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$7$^$&$N$@$+$i3HD%%i%$%V%i%j$O(BEBADF$B$r2>Dj$9$k$Y$-$G$O$J$$(B
$B#2!K(B
Linux$BFCM-$N@)8B$H$7$F!"@h$K(Bselect$B$7$FJL%9%l%C%I$,(Bclose$B$7$?$H$-$K(Bselect$B$O5/>2$7$J$$(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$$$3$H$r3NG'$9$k$3$H$,<g4c$K$J$C$F$k$s$G$9!#(B
$B$=$N$3$H$N@'Hs$O$5$F$*$/$H$7$F!"4pK\E*$K%F%9%H$O$h$[$I%"%l$8$c$J$$$+$.$j%^!<%8$7$F$d$C$F$b$h$+$m$&$H;W$&$N$G%^!<%8$7$A$c$$$^$7$?!#!J(Btest/-ext-
$B$J$s$F%"%l%2%F%9%H$NAc7"$J$s$+$i:#99:Y$+$$$3$H$r8@$C$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$7$/$O!"(BWindows$B$@$1Nc30>e$,$i$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$$$N$G(B
$B!t(B $B:#EY65$($F$/$@$5$$(B
02da662c083396641da96c1d32fc86ed?d=identicon&s=25 KOSAKI Motohiro (Guest)
on 2011-05-12 14:13
(Received via mailing list)
> test_wait(TestIOWait) [C:/Users/usa/ruby/trunk/test/io/wait/test_io_wait.rb:51]:
> <#<Socket:fd 13>> expected but was
> <nil>.

$B$"$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{CN$N@)8B$G$J$K$+?4Ev$?$j$"$j$^$;$s$+!)(B
Windows$B$N%P!<%8%g%s0MB8$H$+$G!#$"!"$&$A$O(B Vista$B$G$9!#(B
Bd9552e540b2683017f1061f2379e351?d=identicon&s=25 arton (Guest)
on 2011-05-12 16:50
(Received via mailing list)
arton$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:in
`fill_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:in
`block 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:in
`test_write_nonblock'
8cbb39dadafaf2287a83a13ee4981ec9?d=identicon&s=25 U.Nakamura (Guest)
on 2011-05-13 07:17
(Received via mailing list)
$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, <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> $B$3$l$O!"KM$,:G6a$$$l$?(BEric$B$N(B io/wait
$B%F%9%H$J$s$G$9$,!"(BWindows$B$G$N@5$7$$F0:n$,ITL@$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$$$N$G(B
> $B!t(B $B:#EY65$($F$/$@$5$$(B

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


$B$=$l$G$O!#(B
8cbb39dadafaf2287a83a13ee4981ec9?d=identicon&s=25 U.Nakamura (Guest)
on 2011-05-13 07:19
(Received via mailing list)
$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, <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> 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{CN$N@)8B$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

$B$"$l!"$J$s$@$m!#(B
rb_w32_socketpair()$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$O!#(B
Bd9552e540b2683017f1061f2379e351?d=identicon&s=25 arton (Guest)
on 2011-05-14 02:58
(Received via mailing list)
arton$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]

>  10) Failure:
> test_wait_for_invalid_fd(TestWaitForSingleFD)
$B$O!"=P$J$+$C$?$N$G$9$,!"=$@5:Q$_$+$J!#(B
02da662c083396641da96c1d32fc86ed?d=identicon&s=25 KOSAKI Motohiro (Guest)
on 2011-05-14 15:00
(Received via mailing list)
2011$BG/(B5$B7n(B14$BF|(B9:58 arton <artonx@yahoo.co.jp>:
> $B$O!"=P$J$+$C$?$N$G$9$,!"=$@5:Q$_$+$J!#(B
$B$3$l$8$c$J$$$+$J!)(B


commit 425b30bc7898f4fe8a65a5481bb5994eccdb59be
Author: usa <usa@b2dd03c8-39d4-4d8f-98ff-823fe69b080e>
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/trunk@31543
b2dd03c8-39d4-4d8f-98ff-823fe69b080e
8cbb39dadafaf2287a83a13ee4981ec9?d=identicon&s=25 U.Nakamura (Guest)
on 2011-05-16 04:05
(Received via mailing list)
$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, <artonx@yahoo.co.jp> wrote:
> Windows7(64) + x64-mswin64_100 $B$G$b!"=P$^$;$s$G$7$?!#(B

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


> >  10) Failure:
> > test_wait_for_invalid_fd(TestWaitForSingleFD)
> $B$O!"=P$J$+$C$?$N$G$9$,!"=$@5:Q$_$+$J!#(B

$B$3$C$A$O(B r31543 $B$G(B($B>lEv$?$jE*$K(B)$B=$@5$7$^$7$?!#(B


$B$=$l$G$O!#(B
0fed2ab16bdf9fc5a8ff6ceb65ba1e72?d=identicon&s=25 Masaya TARUI (Guest)
on 2011-05-16 05:33
(Received via mailing list)
$B$?$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, <artonx@yahoo.co.jp> 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
1e7e007723cfe59320d994a7db4ab4cf?d=identicon&s=25 Yugui (Guest)
on 2011-05-28 07:24
(Received via mailing list)
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 Rosas
E7cff3cfd41c495e1012227d7dc24202?d=identicon&s=25 Luis Lavena (luislavena)
on 2011-05-28 16:38
(Received via mailing list)
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Yugui <yugui@yugui.jp> 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 topic is locked and can not be replied to.