On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 07:53:29 -0600, John Lam (IRONRUBY)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Friday update?
+1: Gives us something to hack on over the weekend.
--
/M:D
M. David Peterson
Co-Founder & Chief Architect, 3rd&Urban, LLC
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mobile: (206) 999-0588
h
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:06:57 -0600, John Lam (IRONRUBY)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is this the world that you really want to live in?
Can I think about it? ;-)
I kid. No, I do recognize your point. It seems a lot of good things are
becoming of this overall conversation, so regardless o
29, 2008 7:15 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Regarding IronRuby... How true it sounds from this
blog
John Lam (IRONRUBY) wrote:
> The nice thing about GIT is that you can use they're GIT->SVN bridge and work
> in a GIT repro on your own box while sync
> > What did you work on since the last update
> > What will you be working on until the next scheduled update
> > What's getting in the way of progress
>
> This is an excellent idea - would folks prefer a Monday or a Friday
> update?
>
I don't have a strong preference but I think I'd vote for a M
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John Lam (IRONRUBY) wrote:
| [...]
| We will make this happen.
Great.
|> This, coupled with the fact that ASP.NET and languages like
|> C# are clearly Microsoft's main interest, lead me to believe that
|> IronRuby is not living up to its full potent
Michael Letterle:
> Is the internal bug list maintained on RubyForge? RubyForge has been
> getting alot more love then before, but I would still like to see more
> community members actively use it.
We don't have an internal bug list (well we do for DLR bugs etc but those
aren't important around
Steve Eichert:
> * How can we be more transparent about what we are working on, and
> where we are heading? A blog? A weekly posting?
>
> I'm not as concerned with the medium of the information (blog, this
> mailing list, wiki) as long as the community has access to the
> information. A dai
Antonio Cangiano:
> The development
> process behind JRuby and Rubinius is very open, while IronRuby's one is
> not nearly enough so.
Impressions are important, and we're working to fix that now.
> While granted IronRuby may appeal to less people than Rubinius or
> JRuby, I still feel that the d
John Lam (IRONRUBY) wrote:
The nice thing about GIT is that you can use they're GIT->SVN bridge and work
in a GIT repro on your own box while syncing changes to SVN. So there's nothing
stopping you from using GIT today if you want ...
I've been using git-svn for a while now, and it's pretty
M. David Peterson:
> I agree. If I am remembering correctly, one of the primary reasons
> behind the dual-repository approach is the need to run a myriad of
> internal tests from a test suite that reaches farther and deeper than
> just IronRuby, and therefore can not see the light of day outside
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 9:12 AM, John Lam (IRONRUBY)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Letterle:
>
>
> > In a technical fashion? No. From an emotional standpoint? Yes.
> > Right now IronRuby is very unstable from the view of an outside
> > contributor, you don't know if the code you're wor
Peter Bacon Darwin:
> My point wasn't that one needs to have access to the DLR code. It was
> that because IronRuby is so tightly coupled to DLR at the moment, it is
> not possible to remove its tethers and let it free as a proper OSS.
> Pete
Yep. BTW, this is exactly the set of arguments that a
Peter Bacon Darwin:
> I believe one of the key problems is the DLR. As I understand, it MS
> makes a distinction between "important" stuff (i.e. the DLR) and
> "peripheral" stuff (i.e. IronXxxx). MS wants to have complete control
> over the DLR and is not interested in making it Open Source. Ra
Michael Letterle:
> In a technical fashion? No. From an emotional standpoint? Yes.
> Right now IronRuby is very unstable from the view of an outside
> contributor, you don't know if the code you're working on now is going
> to need /major/ changes in the next drop, and you don't know when
> tha
The problem with trying to branch IronRuby like that is the DLR is
likely to change from underneath it. Not that the idea hasn't
occurred to me before, but it's really not a viable option in this
scenario.
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:34 AM, Ryan Riley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:36 PM, Peter Bacon Darwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I believe one of the key problems is the DLR. As I understand, it MS makes
> a distinction between "important" stuff (i.e. the DLR) and "peripheral"
> stuff (i.e. IronXxxx). MS wants to have complete control
D] On Behalf Of Sanghyeon Seo
Sent: Tuesday,29 April 29, 2008 06:23
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Regarding IronRuby... How true it sounds from
this blog
2008/4/29 Peter Bacon Darwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I believe one of the key problems is the DLR. As I und
2008/4/29 Peter Bacon Darwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I believe one of the key problems is the DLR. As I understand, it MS makes
> a distinction between "important" stuff (i.e. the DLR) and "peripheral"
> stuff (i.e. IronXxxx). MS wants to have complete control over the DLR and
> is not interested
up. I would dearly love to be proved wrong on this of course.
Michael Foord
That was easy, wasn't it?
Tomas
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Lam
(IRONRUBY)
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 7:05 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subjec
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Michael Foord
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tomas Matousek wrote:
> > [snip...]
> >
> > And if you want app-domain isolation, just do
> ScriptRuntime.Create(System.AppDomain.CreateDomain("foo")).
> Does this actually work? No one has been able to post working code o
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 08:50:48 -0600, M. David Peterson <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> So while Charlie is correct: The IronRuby
> project needs to become more community oriented, that community
> orientation needs to come from not only MSFT's direction, but the
> communities direction as well.
I believe one of the key problems is the DLR. As I understand, it MS makes
a distinction between "important" stuff (i.e. the DLR) and "peripheral"
stuff (i.e. IronXxxx). MS wants to have complete control over the DLR and
is not interested in making it Open Source. Rather the DLR code is just
com
In a technical fashion? No. From an emotional standpoint? Yes.
Right now IronRuby is very unstable from the view of an outside
contributor, you don't know if the code you're working on now is going
to need /major/ changes in the next drop, and you don't know when
that's going to be. Why work on
M. David Peterson wrote:
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:05:02 -0600, John Lam (IRONRUBY)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
He also gets a number of important technical details wrong about
IronRuby, I'll respond later today.
I can point out at least one: "IronRuby really has its roots in the
Ruby.NET proje
the ability to unload assemblies
Ye-olde-reason to use app domains on the CLR
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Michael Foord
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:20 PM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Lam
(IRONRUBY)
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 7:05 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Regarding IronRuby... How true it sounds from this
blog
Sanghyeon Seo:
It seems to be a rather good overview of the status to me.
lto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Lam
(IRONRUBY)
Sent: Monday, April 28, 2008 7:05 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Regarding IronRuby... How true it sounds from this
blog
Sanghyeon Seo:
> It seems to be a rather good overview of the status to me. I mostly
>
> * Would mirroring our internal repo on a commit-by-commit basis help with the
> repository issues? Would it help with the ownership feelings?
>
> I think it would help for sure.
> * How can we be more transparent about what we are working on, and where we
> are heading? A blog? A weekly posti
Jeff Lewis wrote:
>
> +1 for commit by commit mirror or using (even better) using rubyforge as
> primary and mirroring it back to TFS.
>
> +1 for daily builds (preferably automated so that no one has to spend
> much time on it)
+1 I complete agree with David and Jeff.
--
Ryan Riley
[EMAIL PROT
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:53:55 -0600, Michael Letterle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
still an official IronRuby blog will regular updates would be
awesome.
Not sure what legal barriers, if any, might stand in the way of using the
existing ironruby.net domain to host a community-driven blog, but
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:41:02 -0600, Jim Deville <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
So, as the new guy on the other (MSFT) side of the fence,
Welcome, Jim! :D
I am interested in all of these suggestions and ideas.
Great!
In addition, I have some questions/suggestions for you.
* Would mirroring
appreciate the discource. I think that these meta
> discussions are worthwhile in helping define the community.
>
> Jim Deville
>
> -Original Message-
> From: "Steve Eichert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "ironruby-core@rubyforge.org"
> Sent: 4/28
t: 4/28/08 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Regarding IronRuby... How true it sounds from
this blog
I can't say that the delay has stopped me from working on a contribution since
I've just recently started investigating where I may be able to lend a hand.
However, I can say th
I can't say that the delay has stopped me from working on a contribution
since I've just recently started investigating where I may be able to lend a
hand. However, I can say that I'm much more reluctant to jump in and start
working on something since I don't want to work on a implementing or fixi
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:42:01 -0600, Tomas Matousek
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
More precisely, I've heavily refactored the tokenizer (and it's still
not finished) and rewrote semantic actions in the grammar to create
IronRuby AST - which I wrote from scratch. The grammar rules themselves
a
nday, April 28, 2008 7:52 AM
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Regarding IronRuby... How true it sounds from this
blog
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:05:02 -0600, John Lam (IRONRUBY)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> He also gets a number of important technical details
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:05:43 -0600, Charles Oliver Nutter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And this seems to happen again and again. Not only does it slow the
process of fixing bugs, it makes it impossible for people to want to
help fix them. If you can never know you're running against the lates
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:03:49 -0600, Sanghyeon Seo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Blocked? No. Discouraged? Hell sure.
I can't think of a better way to accurately portray the reality of the
situation. Nicely stated, Seo!
--
/M:D
M. David Peterson
Co-Founder & Chief Architect, 3rd&Urban, LLC
Peter Bacon Darwin wrote:
I have not personally been affected by the long time periods between the
code drops. I doubt it has had a serious impact on many other contributors.
Although there have certainly been a few issues highlighted in the mailing
list around the hosting API and some other int
2008/4/29 John Lam (IRONRUBY) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Has working on the SVN sources (with the attendant delays in propagating to
> / from our version of 'the truth') blocked you from working on a contribution?
Blocked? No. Discouraged? Hell sure.
(The same applies to IronPython, but IronPython
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:44:50 -0600, Antonio Cangiano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
As Charlie mentioned somewhere else, JRuby is not Sun's, it belongs to
the community. That statement is entirely backed up by facts, but I'm
afraid that, at this stage, it isn' possible to claim the same for
IronRu
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:45:46 -0600, Charles Oliver Nutter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And answer carefully, friends, because you could help correct this
policy.
I answered honestly. No, it's not getting in the way. But that doesn't
mean I believe that process isn't broken. It is without
Hi,
All I can say is... The Progress is slow.
Refer to this thread in this forum only.
One of the community member shouts, since there is no beta around even
after one year.
Here's the link..
http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/144090#new
All I can say clearly is...There is Lots of Delay in the p
e moment.
My two pennies.
Pete
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Lam
(IRONRUBY)
Sent: Monday,28 April 28, 2008 16:35
To: ironruby-core@rubyforge.org
Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Regarding IronRuby... How true it sounds from
this blog
M.
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:43:29 -0600, Justin Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Another method for getting the codebase would make
it easier for me to see what IronRuby is capable of so far.
Like? Is there another SCC/wire protocol that would work? If yes, there
are plenty of bridges out th
John Lam (IRONRUBY) wrote:
M. David Peterson:
It's far more difficult (maybe impossible) to run an OSS project well
if the community members can't update their working copies to exactly
what the core team sees day-to-day. This one is most likely an MS
issue.
It's absolutely 100% an internal M
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> I disagree, and you need look no further than this mailing list to see
> the truth. Of the perhaps 40 threads I see started since Apr 3, I see
> only 8 that were started by folks from Microsoft...all John Lam...two of
> t
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:35:24 -0600, John Lam (IRONRUBY)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Has working on the SVN sources (with the attendant delays in propagating
to / from our version of 'the truth') blocked you from working on a
contribution?
No.
--
/M:D
M. David Peterson
Co-Founder & Chief
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:35 AM, John Lam (IRONRUBY)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has working on the SVN sources (with the attendant delays in propagating to
> / from our version of 'the truth') blocked you from working on a contribution?
I have a large block of code that is based on the long-ag
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:27:53 -0600, M. David Peterson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But putting yourself in IronRuby's Red Slippers for a moment,
To put this another way, JRuby was a successful OSS project *FIRST* which
-- because of this fact -- attracted Sun to bring the project and its two
M. David Peterson:
> > It's far more difficult (maybe impossible) to run an OSS project well
> > if the community members can't update their working copies to exactly
> > what the core team sees day-to-day. This one is most likely an MS
> issue.
>
> It's absolutely 100% an internal MSFT issue. Ca
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:02:56 -0600, Charles Oliver Nutter
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I disagree, and you need look no further than this mailing list to see
the truth. Of the perhaps 40 threads I see started since Apr 3, I see
only 8 that were started by folks from Microsoft...all John Lam..
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 09:00:04 -0600, Michael Letterle
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well to be fair, IronRuby /does/ have it's roots in Ruby.NET in that
it was the first Microsoft supported CLR implementation.
Fair enough.
And I
believe Charles is referring to the /name/ of Bauer's IronRuby be
M. David Peterson wrote:
That said, I most definitely agree with Charlie's thoughts regarding the
overall community collaboration and contributions as it relates to the
IronRuby project. But I'm less inclined to put the blame entirely on
MSFT's shoulders. The door has certainly been open for
Well to be fair, IronRuby /does/ have it's roots in Ruby.NET in that
it was the first Microsoft supported CLR implementation. And I
believe Charles is referring to the /name/ of Bauer's IronRuby being
adopted by Microsoft, not the codebase.
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:52 AM, M. David Peterson
<[EM
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:05:02 -0600, John Lam (IRONRUBY)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
He also gets a number of important technical details wrong about
IronRuby, I'll respond later today.
I can point out at least one: "IronRuby really has its roots in the
Ruby.NET project from Queensland Univ
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:31:21 -0600, Sanghyeon Seo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Just wondering, how true it sounds... I do not agree on many points.
Looking forward to read more comments on this.
It seems to be a rather good overview of the status to me. I mostly
agree, except for the accusa
Sanghyeon Seo:
> It seems to be a rather good overview of the status to me. I mostly
> agree, except for the accusation that "Microsoft would never back an
> OSS web framework like Rails in preference to its own".
He also gets a number of important technical details wrong about IronRuby, I'll
re
2008/4/28 Rahil Kantharia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> http://headius.blogspot.com/2008/04/promise-and-peril-for-alternative-ruby.html
>
> Just wondering, how true it sounds... I do not agree on many points.
> Looking forward to read more comments on this.
It seems to be a rather good overview of
Hi,
I was just referring a blog from Charles Nutter about his thinking on
IronRuby and future implementations for Rails.
Here's the link..
http://headius.blogspot.com/2008/04/promise-and-peril-for-alternative-ruby.html
Just wondering, how true it sounds... I do not agree on many points.
Looking
60 matches
Mail list logo
