On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 10:30:16AM +0200, Paul Sponagl wrote:
>
> > - user shouldn't really use non ascii characters in partials and
> > templates - i18n is the solution and will help localize the
> > application when it goes global
>
> -1
>
> if you know that a rails app will run only withi
ms to deliver applications that spare
others the suffering and grief.
>
> On Apr 25, 1:01 pm, Czarek wrote:
>
> > - user shouldn't really use non ascii characters in partials and
> > templates - i18n is the solution and will help localize the
> > applic
On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 11:39:30PM -0700, Jeremy Kemper wrote:
>
> Czarek, thanks for raising this. Working with 1.9 string encodings is
> too unforgiving.
After working on #2188 I can say I know exactly what you mean :)
> Most of the patches so far amount to forcing UTF-8 or
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:28:56PM +0200, Jonas Nicklas wrote:
> It's great to see someone finally take charge of this! I still don't
> have the greatest grasp of character encodings, but what you're
> suggesting sounds good.
Thanks :)
> Maybe one additional thing: make all generators put the mag
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:58 AM, Czarek wrote:
> > The general idea is: allow only one "internal" encoding in Rails at
> > any given time, based on the default Ruby encoding (or configurable).
I chose Encoding::default_external for this.
The short story is that E
SUMMARY:
I tried to identify the general and root causes for these problems
with 1.9, by taking into account non-utf encoding, current patches,
comments and ideas. I used ticket #2188 as base for explanations.
This is a long read. I wanted to include all the relevant information
in one p
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 09:15:54PM +0200, Mislav Marohnić wrote:
> >
> > - since no one seriously considers ruby 1.9 ready for production,
> >nobody is going to spend time merging patches for 1.9 encoding
> >support, so sending patches is a waste of time
>
>
> All the "points" you listed
Hi,
I was just curious to know what the status of UTF support in 2.3.5 +
Ruby 1.9 was - from the core developers point of view.
Here are the impressions I have:
- everyone is working on Rails 3, so no one really cares about 2.3,
except for serious bugs and security issues - and it looks li
On Sat, Sep 12, 2009 at 06:39:34AM -0700, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas wrote:
>
> This makes it very hard to get new contributors to Rails core since it
> seems every railer is busy and chances are small that they have enough
> time to figure out the Rails internals by themselves so that they can
> co
There is a lot of magic in Rails that I'm trying to get my head
around. Specifically, I get this error with Ruby -r24788 (today's
snapshot) and Rails (fails both in 2.3.4 and edge).
I would like to work out if this is a 1.9.2 incompatibility with Rails
or a bug in Ruby (most likely the latter):
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 12:52:10PM -0700, Chad Woolley wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Czarek 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
&
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
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 R
On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 09:55:39AM -0700, Chad Woolley wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:11 AM, Eloy Duran wrote:
>
> Thanks for the feedback, everyone. FWIW, this is not new, build
> failures used to go to this list [1]
How about a two stage commit. If CI repo works, then commit to main
re
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 10:32:35AM -0700, Chad Woolley wrote:
>On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Czarek <[1]cezary.bagin...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
> Am I overreacting or is anyone else a tiny bit annoyed by the size of
> these emails? If you're mobile w
On Thu, Sep 03, 2009 at 04:09:49PM +, thewoolley...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> The build failed.
>
> CHANGES
> ---
> Revision ...e3f5fd5 committed by Carl Lerche on
> 2009-09-03 15:59:26
>
> Add ActiveModel's ./pkg and ./doc to .gitignore
>
> .gitignore |2 ++
> 1 files changed, 2
As of 2.3.2 render started loading vim patch mode files
( '*.erb.orig' instead of '*.erb' ):
How to reproduce: create *.erb.orig files in the appropriate view
directory:
rails 2.3.2 loads:
app/views/articles/new.html.erb.orig
instead of:
app/views/articles/new.html.erb
This is probably b
17 matches
Mail list logo
