Hi Devs,

I don't really know enough about ruby to deal with major version updates
such as the 1.9.1 release with which the 1.9 branch is declared stable.


So is there another dev who would like to take the maintenance away from me?

Allan

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Hi Devs,
>
> I don't really know enough about ruby to deal with major version updates
> such as the 1.9.1 release with which the 1.9 branch is declared stable.
>
> So is there another dev who would like to take the maintenance away from me?

Do you think we should find someone to handle ruby stuff? Do we have
enough ruby related packages for this?

Aaron Griffin wrote:

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:


Hi Devs,

I don't really know enough about ruby to deal with major version updates
such as the 1.9.1 release with which the 1.9 branch is declared stable.

So is there another dev who would like to take the maintenance away from me?



Do you think we should find someone to handle ruby stuff? Do we have
enough ruby related packages for this?



I think very little in [extra] depends on ruby (needed plugins mainly),
but the is quite a bit in [community]. I thought BaSh used to maintain
some of them so perhaps he wants to be the maintainer. Anyway, the
transition to the 1.9 series in not minor (as in plug-ins need ported)
so if no-one volunteers, I will just continue with the 1.8 series until
such a time as something in our repos really needs 1.9.


Allan

Hi here,
2009/2/4 Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>:
> I think very little in [extra] depends on ruby (needed plugins mainly), but
> the is quite a bit in [community]. I thought BaSh used to maintain some of
> them so perhaps he wants to be the maintainer. Anyway, the transition to
> the 1.9 series in not minor (as in plug-ins need ported) so if no-one
> volunteers, I will just continue with the 1.8 series until such a time as
> something in our repos really needs 1.9.
I was the maintainer of some ruby- packages in [community] until I
orphaned alexandria which needs they.
I've only the bases of ruby. However I could try to look what we needs
for ruby 1.9.

--
Andrea `BaSh` Scarpino
Arch Linux Developer

Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>:
> I think very little in [extra] depends on ruby (needed plugins mainly),
> but the is quite a bit in [community]. I thought BaSh used to maintain
> some of them so perhaps he wants to be the maintainer. Anyway, the
> transition to the 1.9 series in not minor (as in plug-ins need ported)
> so if no-one volunteers, I will just continue with the 1.8 series until
> such a time as something in our repos really needs 1.9.
>
> Allan

I did an update via abs right know and ran into some smaller problems:
- Ruby 1.9.1 now includes rubygems, so I had to remove that first.
- /usr/bin/rake wasn't owned by any package.
- vim (compiled with --enable-rubyinterp) won't work (and compile)

However, ruby 1.9.1 is really faster than old 1.8.7.

I'll test further for some shortcomings with the new ruby.

--
Gruß, Johannes
Täglich http://blog.hehejo.de und du fühlst dich gut.

http://cryptocd.eduforge.org/online_version

Hi,

Johannes Held wrote:

Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>:
I think very little in [extra] depends on ruby (needed plugins mainly),
but the is quite a bit in [community]. I thought BaSh used to maintain
some of them so perhaps he wants to be the maintainer. Anyway, the
transition to the 1.9 series in not minor (as in plug-ins need ported)
so if no-one volunteers, I will just continue with the 1.8 series until
such a time as something in our repos really needs 1.9.


Allan


I did an update via abs right know and ran into some smaller problems:
- Ruby 1.9.1 now includes rubygems, so I had to remove that first.
- /usr/bin/rake wasn't owned by any package.
- vim (compiled with --enable-rubyinterp) won't work (and compile)

However, ruby 1.9.1 is really faster than old 1.8.7.

I'll test further for some shortcomings with the new ruby.


Does anyone know what the current state of Ruby on Rails versus Ruby
1.9.x is? Because I remember there were compatibility issues and I'm
pretty sure there are Archers who use Ruby on Rails (even if only for
example for development). It would be unfortunate to break it for them,
even if Ruby itself is better in the version 1.9.x.


Ondřej


--
Cheers,
Ondřej Ku�era

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

I think the problem isn't the Rails, but the Gems. Until I know, Rails
2.2.2 are compatible with Ruby 1.9. But some developers don't upgrade
their gems code to work with Ruby 1.9.X, so, sometimes apps will break
with a upgrade. But, it depends only from developers of used gems.

--
Kessia Pinheiro
Computer Science Student - Brazil, UFBa
Linux System Administrator
Arch Linux Trusted User
Linux User #389695
http://even.archlinux-br.org
---
X Fórum Internacional Software Livre - fisl10
24 a 27 de junho de 2009
PUCRS - Porto Alegre - Brasil



On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Ondřej Ku�era <ondrej.kucera@centrum.cz> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Johannes Held wrote:
>>
>> Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org>:
>>>
>>> I think very little in [extra] depends on ruby (needed plugins mainly),
>>> but the is quite a bit in [community]. I thought BaSh used to maintain some
>>> of them so perhaps he wants to be the maintainer. Anyway, the transition to
>>> the 1.9 series in not minor (as in plug-ins need ported) so if no-one
>>> volunteers, I will just continue with the 1.8 series until such a time as
>>> something in our repos really needs 1.9.
>>>
>>> Allan
>>
>> I did an update via abs right know and ran into some smaller problems:
>> - Ruby 1.9.1 now includes rubygems, so I had to remove that first.
>> - /usr/bin/rake wasn't owned by any package.
>> - vim (compiled with --enable-rubyinterp) won't work (and compile)
>>
>> However, ruby 1.9.1 is really faster than old 1.8.7.
>>
>> I'll test further for some shortcomings with the new ruby.
>
> Does anyone know what the current state of Ruby on Rails versus Ruby 1.9.x
> is? Because I remember there were compatibility issues and I'm pretty sure
> there are Archers who use Ruby on Rails (even if only for example for
> development). It would be unfortunate to break it for them, even if Ruby
> itself is better in the version 1.9.x.
>
> Ondřej
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Ondřej Ku�era
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>

Hi,

Kessia 'even' Pinheiro wrote:

I think the problem isn't the Rails, but the Gems. Until I know, Rails
2.2.2 are compatible with Ruby 1.9. But some developers don't upgrade
their gems code to work with Ruby 1.9.X, so, sometimes apps will break
with a upgrade. But, it depends only from developers of used gems.


True. But at the end of the day it goes down to works/doesn't work as a
whole and as long as the gems used by Rails are broken, Rails are
effectively broken too. :-(


Ondřej


--
Cheers,
Ondřej Ku�era

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Ondřej Ku�era <ondrej.kucera@centrum.cz> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> <cut>
>
> True. But at the end of the day it goes down to works/doesn't work as a
> whole and as long as the gems used by Rails are broken, Rails are
> effectively broken too. :-(
>
> Ondřej
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Ondřej Ku�era

True, but, it depends of the user. If he don't use any gem, it wont
broke. So, we need decide if we'll provide a new package with many new
features, or wait some time (how much?) to provide this package
because some (how much?) users use a specific gem to code/run a Rails
app.
Finally, I maintain the rubygems package at community, so, when we
decide which choise will be applyed, we need remove the rubygems
package from community too.

Thanks,
--
Kessia Pinheiro
Computer Science Student - Brazil, UFBa
Linux System Administrator
Arch Linux Trusted User
Linux User #389695
http://even.archlinux-br.org
---
X Fórum Internacional Software Livre - fisl10
24 a 27 de junho de 2009
PUCRS - Porto Alegre - Brasil


>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>

Hi,

Kessia 'even' Pinheiro wrote:

True, but, it depends of the user. If he don't use any gem, it wont
broke. So, we need decide if we'll provide a new package with many new
features, or wait some time (how much?) to provide this package
because some (how much?) users use a specific gem to code/run a Rails
app.


Yes, it's not an easy question, ideally someone enough involved in the
Rails community should say when it is OK (from Rails point of view) to
upgrade Ruby. I'm definitely not that person I'm afraid, I just wanted
to say that upgrading Ruby has its consequences. I myself don't use/need
any other gems than those that Rails require, at least for now I don't.


Ondřej


--
Cheers,
Ondřej Ku�era

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.