Hi guys. Just wanted to notify you, before releasing 2.3.4, that there
are two failing AR-MySQL unit tests on 2-3-stable:
1) Failure:
test_validate_uniqueness(ValidationsTest)
[./test/cases/validations_test.rb:355:in
`test_validate_uniqueness'
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 19:32, Chad Woolley thewoolley...@gmail.com wrote:
3. Help fix the build :)
If there are three commits—A, B and C, where A breaks the build and B,C are
unrelated—I'm wondering why should CI send out emails for errors in B and C
when it detected them in A.
In other
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 8:50 AM, Mislav
Marohnićmislav.maroh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 19:32, Chad Woolley thewoolley...@gmail.com wrote:
3. Help fix the build :)
If there are three commits—A, B and C, where A breaks the build and B,C are
unrelated—I'm wondering why should
On Sep 4, 2009, at 7:30 AM, Nicolás Sanguinetti wrote:
Don't forget the build is broken, thus, spam you with emails until
someone drags his ass over and fixes the build
The problem with the spam emails approach is that people will treat
them as spam. I don't know what the answer is, but I
I tend to print them out, beat them with a stick before I set them on
fire, unfortunately gmail was unable to automate this process for me.
Seriously though, I think you're right Mike. Actually, I can assure
you I know of at least a few people who have unsubscribed from the
list because of
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Eloy Duraneloy.de.en...@gmail.com wrote:
I tend to print them out, beat them with a stick before I set them on
fire, unfortunately gmail was unable to automate this process for me.
Seriously though, I think you're right Mike. Actually, I can assure
you I know
+1
2009/9/4 Nicolás Sanguinetti godf...@gmail.com:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Eloy Duraneloy.de.en...@gmail.com wrote:
I tend to print them out, beat them with a stick before I set them on
fire, unfortunately gmail was unable to automate this process for me.
Seriously though, I
On Sep 4, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Nicolás Sanguinetti wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Eloy Duraneloy.de.en...@gmail.com
wrote:
I tend to print them out, beat them with a stick before I set them on
fire, unfortunately gmail was unable to automate this process for me.
Seriously though,
Dude,
This is a list for discussions, and I'm hear to see if people might
have problems with code that I wrote for Rails, not for fun.
Please take your patronizing comments to the playground, you have
added 0.0 to this discussion.
Eloy
On Sep 4, 2009, at 3:04 PM, Rob Biedenharn wrote:
Argh, obviously I meant here.
On Sep 4, 2009, at 3:32 PM, Eloy Duran wrote:
Dude,
This is a list for discussions, and I'm hear to see if people might
have problems with code that I wrote for Rails, not for fun.
Please take your patronizing comments to the playground, you have
added
I agree with Rob that this list is the right place for it. It's easy
for individuals to opt out by setting up a mail filter. Takes 2
seconds.
- Ken
On Sep 4, 2009, at 9:04 AM, Rob Biedenharn wrote:
On Sep 4, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Nicolás Sanguinetti wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 9:47
Hey Ken,
Sure it's 2 seconds of work to setup a mail filter, but so is signing
up for a specialized mailing list. So that doesn't make it a good
reason.
I wouldn't be bothered by these CI emails if we'd see one every now
and then. But nowadays, it seems like every other build is broken.
We use hudson, and we're very happy with it.
It can be configured to only email to the person who broke the build.
Aside from that, the annoying part is indeed that the build is broken
every hour.
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 16:11, Eloy Duraneloy.de.en...@gmail.com wrote:
Hey Ken,
Sure it's 2
It looks like this last test failure just won't pass on CI as it is
running 1.8.6, from the code:
# This is broken in 1.8.6 (not supported in Rails 3.0) because the
cache uses a Hash
# key. Since Ruby 1.8.6 implements Hash#hash using the hash's
object_id, it will never
# successfully get a
It struck me today that there's no way to emulate
accepts_nested_attributes_for for saving multiple objects that aren't
nested.
accepts_nested_attributes_for gives a good pattern for managing
multiple objects in a single form, elegantly handling current records
and new records, and validations
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Eloy Duran eloy.de.en...@gmail.com wrote:
I wouldn't be bothered by these CI emails if we'd see one every now
and then. But nowadays, it seems like every other build is broken.
That's the real problem here.
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. FWIW, this is not
On 4-Sep-09, at 12:55 PM, Chad Woolley wrote:
However, not fixing the build promptly is a problem, and one of the
reasons I wanted to reinstate notifications to this list.
On a large/distributed project like Rails - especially one where many
people run the master branch live in their
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 02:02:46PM -0400, Mateo Murphy wrote:
On 4-Sep-09, at 12:55 PM, Chad Woolley wrote:
However, not fixing the build promptly is a problem, and one of the
reasons I wanted to reinstate notifications to this list.
On a large/distributed project like Rails -
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Czarek cezary.bagin...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps a timeout within which the build should be fixed? I mean it
doesn't take hours for CI to detect the problem. And then mail if fix
doesn't come in time.
That's a good idea. How about this:
1. The first three red
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 12:52:10PM -0700, Chad Woolley wrote:
I don't believe committers will want to create and subscribe to a
separate list. And this is *their* mailing list. Then again, the rest
of us may want to know if we should pull or not.
If the rails core list isn't a place to
I was looking at old patches, and came across:
https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/98-patch-h-method-is-not-aliased-properly
When I tried to reproduce, I found that the rails version wasn't
getting called at all, whether references by html_escape or h.
It looks like when
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 12:52:10PM -0700, Chad Woolley wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Czarek cezary.bagin...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps a timeout within which the build should be fixed? I mean it
doesn't take hours for CI to detect the problem. And then mail if fix
doesn't come in
I believe this was discussed in passing in the CI thread? Something
along the lines of Hash#hash in 1.8.6 being a problem for us.
On another level though, 1.9 is the future of ruby, and 1.8.7 is
expressly intended to be the 1.8.x which makes it easier to handle the
migration. So preferring 1.9
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Michael Koziarskimich...@koziarski.com wrote:
I believe this was discussed in passing in the CI thread? Something
along the lines of Hash#hash in 1.8.6 being a problem for us.
On another level though, 1.9 is the future of ruby, and 1.8.7 is
expressly intended
Here's a gist that lays it all out
http://gist.github.com/181141
I actually have a fix for this in the rails_xss branch which is due to
hit for 3.0. I addition to redefining it for performance reasons we
need to add awareness of the escaped status of the string.
--
Cheers
Koz
25 matches
Mail list logo
