[#1884] multiple exceptions for assert_raises — nobu.nokada@...

Hi,

14 messages 2003/12/04

[#1932] --enable-pthread broken? — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>

[ruby-talk: 87759] and the surrounding thread seem to indicate that

29 messages 2003/12/11
[#1933] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/11

Hi,

[#1934] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/11

On Dec 11, 2003, at 11:49, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#1935] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — ts <decoux@...> 2003/12/11

>>>>> "N" == Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@talbott.ws> writes:

[#1937] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — nobu.nokada@... 2003/12/11

Hi,

[#1938] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/12

On Dec 11, 2003, at 16:10, nobu.nokada@softhome.net wrote:

[#1939] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/12

Hi,

[#1941] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/12

Hi,

[#1943] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/12

On Dec 11, 2003, at 20:48, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#1953] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/13

Hi,

[#1959] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — ts <decoux@...> 2003/12/14

>>>>> "Y" == Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:

[#1961] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/15

Hi,

[#1962] Re: --enable-pthread broken? — ts <decoux@...> 2003/12/15

>>>>> "Y" == Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org> writes:

[#1936] Can't define +@ for Symbol (plus ruby install problem) — "T. Onoma" <transami@...>

I wanted to see if the +@ problem was fixed in 1.8.1 preview 3 but when I do

11 messages 2003/12/11

[#1973] Where to install documentation — Dave Thomas <dave@...>

Folks:

48 messages 2003/12/15
[#1982] Re: Where to install documentation — Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net> 2003/12/15

Dave Thomas (dave@pragprog.com) wrote:

[#1984] Re: Where to install documentation — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2003/12/15

[#1991] Re: Where to install documentation — "Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair@...> 2003/12/16

>

[#1992] Re: Where to install documentation — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2003/12/16

[#2000] Re: Where to install documentation — Minero Aoki <aamine@...> 2003/12/16

Hi,

[#2002] Re: Where to install documentation — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2003/12/16

[#2037] --enable-pthread still segfaults... — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>

I've finally been able to test my application under load using the

25 messages 2003/12/23
[#2038] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/23

Hi,

[#2039] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/23

On Dec 23, 2003, at 14:17, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#2040] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/23

Hi,

[#2041] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/23

On Dec 23, 2003, at 14:34, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#2042] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/23

Hi,

[#2043] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/23

On Dec 23, 2003, at 14:44, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#2045] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/23

Hi,

[#2046] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/23

> I'm afraid you're using old configure file. Can you wipe off old

[#2049] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/23

On Dec 23, 2003, at 15:18, Nathaniel Talbott wrote:

[#2050] Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults... — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 2003/12/23

In message "Re: --enable-pthread still segfaults..."

[#2122] Bad interaction between timeout.rb and --enable-pthread — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...>

Here's a testcase that shows the problem:

13 messages 2003/12/31
[#2123] sleep is broken with --enable-pthread [Was: Bad interaction between timeout.rb and --enable-pthread] — Nathaniel Talbott <nathaniel@...> 2003/12/31

I should have reduced it more before posting...

Re: Where to install documentation

From: "Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair@...>
Date: 2003-12-16 07:05:40 UTC
List: ruby-core #2003
>
> On Dec 16, 2003, at 0:08, Gavin Sinclair wrote:
>
>>  * ~/.rdoc is not accurate: RDoc output forms part of a package's
>>    installed documentation, but not all of it.  Other files include
>> README, TODO, ChangeLog, etc.  "~/.ruby_doc" is better.
>
> The stuff in .rdoc is just RDoc documentation. The random other stuff
> can go where it will, but I'd strongly suggest not putting it anywhere:
> there's really no reason to pollute someone's filesystem by copying a
> Changelog or TODO file out of a project structure and into the
> mainstream.

I quite disagree.  With that reasoning, why not simply generate the RDoc
stuff into the project structure?  Answer: we want centralisation of
documentation.  That goes for non-generated stuff as well as generated
stuff.  We shouldn't have an RDoc-prejudice.  ChangeLog may not sound all
that exciting, but what about UsersGuide.pdf?

If you copy it out of the project structure, then the project structure
can be deleted afterwards, or installed directly from the internet, etc. 
You shouldn't assume that people want to keep "project structure"
directories around on their machine.  You can reasonably assume that
people want comprehensive documentation "installed" on their machine.


>>   /usr/lib/ruby/doc/1.8/             <system documentation directory>
>> /usr/lib/ruby/site_ruby/doc/1.8/   <site-wide documentation dir>
>> ~/.ruby/doc/1.8/                   <user's installed documentation>
>
> Except the version number should come before /doc, because it has a
> higher precedence, I think (remember the part about documentation being
> version specific).

Documentation is version specific, and whether we use doc/1.8 or 1.8/doc,
that fact is honored.  I advocate doc/1.8 because I want to think "ah,
this is where the documentation is stored" not "this is where everything
to do with 1.8 is stored".

I know you want to be able to "rm -rf 1.6", but I can handle one or two
extra "rm -rf" steps in the uncommon activity of uninstalling Ruby.

'doc' should go higher in the directory structure than '1.8' because it is
more general.

Gavin



In This Thread