[#90399] [Ruby trunk Feature#14813] [PATCH] gc.c: make gc_enter+gc_exit pairs dtrace probes, too — ko1@...
Issue #14813 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
3 messages
2018/12/10
[#90417] [Ruby trunk Bug#15398] TestThread#test_signal_at_join fails on FreeBSD — naruse@...
Issue #15398 has been reported by naruse (Yui NARUSE).
4 messages
2018/12/11
[#90423] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#15398] TestThread#test_signal_at_join fails on FreeBSD
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/12/11
[email protected] wrote:
[#90519] Spoofing warnings for mail from bugs.ruby-lang.org — Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...>
I'm getting a spoofing warning for emails sent from bugs.ruby-lang.org when
4 messages
2018/12/13
[#90522] Re: Spoofing warnings for mail from bugs.ruby-lang.org
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/12/13
Charles Oliver Nutter <[email protected]> wrote:
[#90533] [Ruby trunk Feature#15413] unmarkable C stack (3rd stack) — normalperson@...
Issue #15413 has been reported by normalperson (Eric Wong).
3 messages
2018/12/14
[#90581] [Ruby trunk Bug#15424] Ruby 2.6.0rc1 & 2.6.0rc2 mutex exception — mat999@...
Issue #15424 has been reported by splitice (Mathew Heard).
3 messages
2018/12/17
[#90595] [Ruby trunk Bug#15430] test_fork_while_parent_locked is failing status on Ruby CI — hsbt@...
Issue #15430 has been reported by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA).
3 messages
2018/12/18
[#90614] [Ruby trunk Bug#15430][Assigned] test_fork_while_parent_locked is failing status on Ruby CI — hsbt@...
Issue #15430 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA).
4 messages
2018/12/19
[#90630] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#15430][Assigned] test_fork_while_parent_locked is failing status on Ruby CI
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/12/20
> It still exists. https://rubyci.org/logs/rubyci.s3.amazonaws.com/centos7/ruby-trunk/log/20181218T230003Z.fail.html.gz
[#90820] Re: [ruby-cvs:73697] k0kubun:r66593 (trunk): accept_nonblock_spec.rb: skip spurious failure — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
[email protected] wrote:
3 messages
2018/12/30
[ruby-core:90812] [Ruby trunk Misc#15487] Clarify default gems maintanance policy
From:
ruby-core@...
Date:
2018-12-29 18:32:29 UTC
List:
ruby-core #90812
Issue #15487 has been updated by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune). Much of this is in this [list of maintainers](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/trunk/doc/maintainers.rdoc) and [basic maintainers guidelines](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby/wiki/MaintainerDischargingProcess) As for the `json` gem, I agree it should be made clear which is the authoritative repository. I can help with maintainership too. ---------------------------------------- Misc #15487: Clarify default gems maintanance policy https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15487#change-75990 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal * Assignee: ---------------------------------------- In addition to #15486, I'd like to raise the question of the general _maintanance policy_ for "default" Ruby gems, in particular: * who is responsible for each gem and how they should be contacted? * what are goals and policies for gems code quality and documentation? * where do default gems are discussed? * what are some promises/guarantees default gems maintainers try to fulfill? The most demonstrative example I'd like to point is `json` gem: * The source at [ruby/json](https://github.com/ruby/json) is NOT authoritative as far as I can tell, the authoritative one is [flori/json](https://github.com/flori/json) * The gem still holds signs of the times it was independent (`Pure` and `Ext` JSON implementations, but `Pure` is not copied into the `ruby/lib` on releases, rendering standard docs pretty weird), and has NO mention it is THE json gem of Ruby * The gem seems unmaintained, considering the amount of [PRs](https://github.com/flori/json/pulls) and [issues](https://github.com/flori/json/issues), lot of them without any reaction for months * When I tried to update JSON docs, in [core tracker issue](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14581) I was asked to make a PR to "upstream repository", but there, the PRs ([#347](https://github.com/flori/json/pull/347), [#349](https://github.com/flori/json/pull/349)) was simply ignored; Ruby 2.6 was released without new docs, despite the fact PRs were made at **March** and require almost no code review (unlike even some promising optimization PRs, that were also hanging there since Feb/Mar) It is just one unfortunate case (TBH, my experience with contributing to other libraries, like `csv` and `psych` was much smoother), but it demonstrates some common lack of transparency in maintaining of Ruby's standard library -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>