[#7043] RUBYOPT versioning? — Caleb Tennis <caleb@...>
Matz, others:
4 messages
2006/01/02
[#7050] RDoc patches for BigDecimal in Ruby CVS — mathew <meta@...>
Now that 1.8.4 is out and the initial flurry of problem reports has died
4 messages
2006/01/03
[#7055] More on VC++ 2005 — Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Okay. I've got Ruby compiling. I'm attempting to get everything in
17 messages
2006/01/05
[#7058] Re: More on VC++ 2005
— nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@...>
2006/01/06
Hi,
[#7066] Re: More on VC++ 2005
— Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
2006/01/06
On 05/01/06, nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@ge.com> wrote:
[#7069] Re: More on VC++ 2005
— Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
2006/01/06
On 06/01/06, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
[#7085] Re: More on VC++ 2005
— nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@...>
2006/01/10
Hi,
[#7086] Re: More on VC++ 2005
— Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
2006/01/10
On 09/01/06, nobuyoshi nakada <nobuyoshi.nakada@ge.com> wrote:
[#7057] 64-bit Solaris READ_DATA_PENDING Revisited — Steven Lumos <steven@...>
2 messages
2006/01/06
[#7078] CRC - a proof-of-concept Ruby compiler — Anders Hkersten <chucky@...>
Hello everyone,
6 messages
2006/01/09
[#7084] mathn: ugly warnings — hadmut@... (Hadmut Danisch)
Hi,
22 messages
2006/01/10
[#7097] Re: mathn: ugly warnings
— Daniel Berger <Daniel.Berger@...>
2006/01/10
Hadmut Danisch wrote:
[#7098] Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings)
— mathew <meta@...>
2006/01/10
Daniel Berger wrote:
[#7118] Re: Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings)
— mathew <meta@...>
2006/01/12
*Dean Wampler *<deanwampler gmail.com> writes:
[#7123] Re: Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings)
— Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
2006/01/12
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, mathew wrote:
[#7124] Re: Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings)
— ara.t.howard@...
2006/01/12
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
[#7125] Re: Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings)
— James Britt <ruby@...>
2006/01/12
ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
[#7126] Re: Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings)
— ara.t.howard@...
2006/01/12
On Fri, 13 Jan 2006, James Britt wrote:
[#7142] Re: Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings)
— mathew <meta@...>
2006/01/13
Dean Wampler <deanwampler gmail.com> writes:
[#7145] Re: Design contracts and refactoring (was Re: mathn: ugly warnings)
— Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
2006/01/13
On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, mathew wrote:
[#7100] core dump with ruby 1.9.0 (2006-01-10) and bdb-0.5.8 — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>
I found following test script dumps core.
6 messages
2006/01/11
[#7101] Re: core dump with ruby 1.9.0 (2006-01-10) and bdb-0.5.8
— ts <decoux@...>
2006/01/11
>>>>> "T" == Tanaka Akira <akr@m17n.org> writes:
[#7102] Re: core dump with ruby 1.9.0 (2006-01-10) and bdb-0.5.8
— Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>
2006/01/11
In article <200601110905.k0B950Op001713@moulon.inra.fr>,
[#7109] Calling flock with block? — Bertram Scharpf <lists@...>
Hi,
7 messages
2006/01/11
[#7111] Re: Calling flock with block?
— Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
2006/01/11
On Thu, 12 Jan 2006, Bertram Scharpf wrote:
[#7129] YAML.load({[]=>""}.to_yaml) — Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>
I found that current YAML doesn't round trip {[]=>""}.
9 messages
2006/01/12
[#7135] Re: YAML.load({[]=>""}.to_yaml)
— "H.Yamamoto" <ocean@...2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
2006/01/13
Hi.
[#7154] Re: YAML.load({[]=>""}.to_yaml)
— "H.Yamamoto" <ocean@...2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
2006/01/15
Hi.
[#7155] Re: YAML.load({[]=>""}.to_yaml)
— Tanaka Akira <akr@...17n.org>
2006/01/15
In article <20060115202203.D3624CA0.ocean@m2.ccsnet.ne.jp>,
[#7162] FileUtils.mv does not unlink source file when moving over filesystem boundary — Pav Lucistnik <pav@...>
Hi,
4 messages
2006/01/16
[#7166] Re: FileUtils.mv does not unlink source file when moving over filesystem boundary
— ara.t.howard@...
2006/01/16
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006, Pav Lucistnik wrote:
[#7178] Add XHTML 1.0 Output Support to Ruby CGI — Paul Duncan <pabs@...>
The attached patch against Ruby 1.8.4 adds XHTML 1.0 output support to
5 messages
2006/01/20
[#7186] Ruby 1.9 and FHS — "Kirill A. Shutemov" <k.shutemov@...>
Build and install system changes:
6 messages
2006/01/23
[#7195] trouble due ruby redefining posix function eaccess — noreply@...
Bugs item #3317, was opened at 2006-01-24 15:33
5 messages
2006/01/24
[#7197] SSL-enabled DRb fds on SSLError? — ctm@... (Clifford T. Matthews)
Howdy,
8 messages
2006/01/24
[#7198] Re: SSL-enabled DRb fds on SSLError?
— Eric Hodel <drbrain@...7.net>
2006/01/24
On Jan 24, 2006, at 12:46 PM, Clifford T. Matthews wrote:
[#7200] Re: SSL-enabled DRb fds on SSLError?
— ctm@... (Clifford T. Matthews)
2006/01/24
Patch worked fine against HEAD.
[#7203] bcc32's memory manager bug — "H.Yamamoto" <ocean@...2.ccsnet.ne.jp>
Hi.
1 message
2006/01/25
[#7211] Some troubles with an embedded ruby interpreter — Matt Mower <matt.mower@...>
Hi folks,
4 messages
2006/01/25
[#7216] String#scan loops forefever if scanned string is modified inside block. — noreply@...
Bugs item #3329, was opened at 2006-01-26 10:55
3 messages
2006/01/26
[#7226] Fwd: Re: Question about massive API changes — "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>
Hello,
23 messages
2006/01/28
[#7248] Re: Fwd: Re: Question about massive API changes
— Charles Thornton <ceo@...>
2006/01/30
Sean E. Russell wrote:
[#7228] Re: Question about massive API changes
— Caleb Tennis <caleb@...>
2006/01/28
>
[#7233] Re: Question about massive API changes
— Wilson Bilkovich <wilsonb@...>
2006/01/28
On 1/28/06, Caleb Tennis <caleb@aei-tech.com> wrote:
[#7234] Re: Question about massive API changes
— "Sean E. Russell" <ser@...>
2006/01/28
On Saturday 28 January 2006 17:13, Wilson Bilkovich wrote:
[#7242] Re: Question about massive API changes
— mathew <meta@...>
2006/01/29
Sean E. Russell wrote:
[#7249] PATCH: append option to sysread — Yohanes Santoso <ysantoso-rubycore@...>
6 messages
2006/01/30
[#7259] TCP/UDP server weird lags on 1.8.4 linux — "Bill Kelly" <billk@...>
Hi !
6 messages
2006/01/31
Re: Fwd: Re: Question about massive API changes
From:
Charles Thornton <ceo@...>
Date:
2006-01-30 19:10:51 UTC
List:
ruby-core #7248
Sean E. Russell wrote:
>Hello,
>
>I didn't see a CC in the email Matz sent me, so I'm forwarding it on to the
>group.
>
>The context is that I'm contemplating some optimizations to REXML that will,
>by necessity, cause some API changes which will break some code using REXML.
>I emailed Matz and asked for his opinion on how to proceed, and asking him
>whether he wanted to discuss it in private, or in Core. He responded that
>he'd like to see it in Core, so here is his response to my email. My
>response to him is after the forwarded part.
>
>---------- Forwarded Message ----------
>
>Subject: Re: Question about massive API changes
>Date: Friday 27 January 2006 22:35
>From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@ruby-lang.org>
>To: "Sean E. Russell" <ser@germane-software.com>
>
>Hi,
>
>On 1/27/06, Sean E. Russell <ser@germane-software.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Hello Matz,
>>
>>If you think this is better discussed in core, let me know, and I'll repost
>>it there.
>>
>>
>
>Let us discuss there. I'd like to hear opinions from others.
>
>
>
>>As I see it, I have three options:
>>
>>0) Warn everybody, make the changes in 1.9, and have Ruby 2.0 break a lot
>>of applications that use REXML. This will Piss People Off (tm).
>>
>>1) Create a new package. REXML2, or something, and add it to the tree.
>>This is, basically, a fork. People can migrate their apps to the new API as
>>they see fit. This would mean:
>> a) A duplicate REXML tree, which bloats the Ruby distribution,
>> b) A semi-duplicate tree, containing only the files which have
>>changed and which references the base REXML installation.
>> c) Use a library versioning tool, like Thomas Sawyer's Roll
>>(http://roll.rubyforge.org)
>>
>>3) Don't do anything. Which sucks, because it means no optimizations.
>>
>>
1) I personally like total duplication, the code is all in one place
when you start searching a library for something. Considering the
state of low cost of transfer and storage -- I see no problem.
2) Now for the "I will probably be stoned answer" -- If anybody employed
either full time or consultant UPGRADES Language Release without
being aware of any compatility issues between one version and the next
I'd fire his butt.
3) Nobody is FORCED to Upgrade and break code. It is a CHOICE beween
Adjusting your code or living with your current verion (say 1.8.4).
Which
by the way works very well. I only languages I know of that don't break
something between major releases are DEAD ONES.
4) Please excuse any ranting that might bleen thru :-)