Charles' home folder is not primary location of jruby
-
Key: JRUBY-2373
URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JRUBY-2373
Project: JRuby
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Miscellaneous
Sample script java2.rb doesn't neccesarily open the correct file
Key: JRUBY-2372
URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JRUBY-2372
Project: JRuby
Issue Type: Bug
Compon
src dist is not including Rakefile
--
Key: JRUBY-2371
URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JRUBY-2371
Project: JRuby
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Miscellaneous
Affects Versions: JRuby 1.1
JRuby startup time significantly slower than MRI
Key: JRUBY-2370
URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JRUBY-2370
Project: JRuby
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Performance
Affects Ve
--- Den man 7/4/08 skrev Charles Oliver Nutter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> FYI, we're chasing this down on the RubyGems side and
> we'll get them to
> change it back to just "gem". JRuby shouldn't
> be the only impl forced to
> have a differently-named 'gem' script.
Seems like RubyGems are already do
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
Ola Bini wrote:
We can always do a repeated sequence out of the current releases. So
that means the next major release should be 2.1 (1.0 + 1.1), and the
one after that 3.2.
That way we will get really lovely and high version numbers quickly,
while avoiding the sti
Ola Bini wrote:
We can always do a repeated sequence out of the current releases. So
that means the next major release should be 2.1 (1.0 + 1.1), and the one
after that 3.2.
That way we will get really lovely and high version numbers quickly,
while avoiding the sticky 2.0
Nice...so in a few y
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
pat eyler wrote:
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- We need to consider what version number we might want for
JRuby.next...1.2? 2.0? Tom suggested 3.0 since it wouldn't confuse
people
about JRuby 2.0/Ruby 2.0. I th
pat eyler wrote:
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
- We need to consider what version number we might want for
JRuby.next...1.2? 2.0? Tom suggested 3.0 since it wouldn't confuse people
about JRuby 2.0/Ruby 2.0. I think it's open for discussion.
Ola Bini wrote:
Good goals. I still believe that focused performance work on Rails is
still very much needed.
Absolutely...and with the release behind us (and 1.1.1 probably going
out the door in a week or two) we can really start to do that.
- Charlie
--
Vladimir Sizikov wrote:
Hi folks,
While we're at it, it seems that the new rubygems 1.1.0 is actually
installing 'jgem' binary under JRuby now, not "gem" :)
These are messages during upgrade to rubygems 1.1
install -c -m 0755 /tmp/gem /opt/work/jruby.git/bin/jgem
"If `gem` was installed by a pr
M C wrote:
First of all congrats to the development team for releasing jruby 1.1!
Impressive work!!
I took a brief look at it yesterday and from a user perspective I have a
a few initial suggestions for 1.1.x in addition to the areas of Java
Integration and performance that you mention (which
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:25 AM, Dean Wampler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think we should follow Java's example and use both "1.X" and "X"
> simultaneously. We should also use a random generator to arbitrarily insert
> one or the other in all documentation, emails, etc.
Mixing Roman and Arabic
On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:22 AM, pat eyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > - We need to consider what version number we might want for
> > JRuby.next...1.2? 2.0? Tom suggested 3.0 since it wouldn't confuse
> peopl
On Sun, Apr 6, 2008 at 12:58 AM, Charles Oliver Nutter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> - We need to consider what version number we might want for
> JRuby.next...1.2? 2.0? Tom suggested 3.0 since it wouldn't confuse people
> about JRuby 2.0/Ruby 2.0. I think it's open for discussion.
I'd go with 1.
Hi folks,
While we're at it, it seems that the new rubygems 1.1.0 is actually
installing 'jgem' binary under JRuby now, not "gem" :)
These are messages during upgrade to rubygems 1.1
install -c -m 0755 /tmp/gem /opt/work/jruby.git/bin/jgem
"If `gem` was installed by a previous RubyGems installati
M C wrote:
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for taking time to make a explanation of why the problem with naming and
co-existence. Things are clearer for me now.
Surely convincing the ruby developer world to add a "j" to all generated gem
tasks if running under jruby is a much bigger problem then just rena
'ant spec' failures on on MacOS
---
Key: JRUBY-2369
URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JRUBY-2369
Project: JRuby
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Core Classes/Modules
Affects Versions: JRuby 1.1
Hi Stephen,
Thanks for taking time to make a explanation of why the problem with naming and
co-existence. Things are clearer for me now.
Surely convincing the ruby developer world to add a "j" to all generated gem
tasks if running under jruby is a much bigger problem then just renaming the
bui
IRBConsole crashes in trunk, regression appeared in 6407 (probably)
---
Key: JRUBY-2368
URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/JRUBY-2368
Project: JRuby
Issue Type: Bug
20 matches
Mail list logo
