I'd like to do a 1.0.1 maintenance soon of the rack-1.0 branch. Please
test your apps and frameworks on that branch. It should be a fully
compatible bug fix release.
I went though most of the Lighthouse tickets and only found one that
really concerned 1.0.
[Sorry for being rather inactive lately, my real life is too busy. ;)]
Joshua Peek <j...@joshpeek.com> writes: > I'd like to do a 1.0.1 maintenance soon of the rack-1.0 branch. Please > test your apps and frameworks on that branch. It should be a fully > compatible bug fix release.
This is a good idea. When you consider it ready, I can write an announcement and do a formal release on Rubyforge and my servers.
> I went though most of the Lighthouse tickets and only found one that > really concerned 1.0.
Neukirchen<chneukirc...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm open for Rack 1.1 suggestions. 1.1-discussed things can be merged > into master now.
> I have more time to do a release cycle in the next few weeks, so if we > merge quickly, we can push a 1.1 pretty soon.
For 1.1, I want to pull parts of Bryan Helmkamp's Rack::Test lib into core. Its been proven and widely accepted by many frameworks so far. I want to start a separate thread for this and we can discuss whats important, what belongs in core, etc. 1.1 will give us a chance to improve Rack's testing support.
Neukirchen<chneukirc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'd like to do a 1.0.1 maintenance soon of the rack-1.0 branch. Please >> test your apps and frameworks on that branch. It should be a fully >> compatible bug fix release.
> This is a good idea. When you consider it ready, I can write an > announcement and do a formal release on Rubyforge and my servers.
Can anyone report any failures on 1.9? I have some that are related to a ruby regression (in 1.9.1-p152).
To correctly solve this issue Rack needs to make some decisions about
how to mark the encoding of incoming data.
Jeremy Kemper and I started a discussion on that ticket that really
needs to be promoted to a mailing list.
Ignoring the issue of discerning the encoding of the request query
string, there's still the request body on POST requests. According to
RFC2616, Rack can use the charset segment of the requests Content-Type
header to determine the request body encoding and assume ISO-8859-1 if
a charset isn't provided.
However FF 3.5 doesn't appear to specify the charset of its UTF-8
encoded requests, which means Rack *should* (incorrectly) mark the
incoming data as ISO-8859-1.
Can anyone shed some light on what the correct behaviour for Rack
should be?
Neukirchen<chneukirc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'd like to do a 1.0.1 maintenance soon of the rack-1.0 branch. Please >> test your apps and frameworks on that branch. It should be a fully >> compatible bug fix release.
> This is a good idea. When you consider it ready, I can write an > announcement and do a formal release on Rubyforge and my servers.
Joshua Peek <j...@joshpeek.com> writes: > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Christian > Neukirchen<chneukirc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm open for Rack 1.1 suggestions. 1.1-discussed things can be merged >> into master now.
>> I have more time to do a release cycle in the next few weeks, so if we >> merge quickly, we can push a 1.1 pretty soon.
> For 1.1, I want to pull parts of Bryan Helmkamp's Rack::Test lib into > core. Its been proven and widely accepted by many frameworks so far. I > want to start a separate thread for this and we can discuss whats > important, what belongs in core, etc. 1.1 will give us a chance to > improve Rack's testing support.
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Joshua Peek<j...@joshpeek.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Christian > Neukirchen<chneukirc...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I'd like to do a 1.0.1 maintenance soon of the rack-1.0 branch. Please >>> test your apps and frameworks on that branch. It should be a fully >>> compatible bug fix release.
>> This is a good idea. When you consider it ready, I can write an >> announcement and do a formal release on Rubyforge and my servers.
> Rails 2.3 is all systems go w/ rack 1.0.1.
> Should wait on Ryan to test w/ Sinatra.
Sorry. I'm way behind on ML/lighthouse duties.
Sinatra looks good under the rack-1.0 branch. +1 for release.
The Sinatra test suite fails like crazy under 1.9 due to this rack.input / external encoding Rack::Lint check:
The Sinatra test suite puts Rack::Lint in the middleware pipeline for every test, though. I don't think that's a common practice. It passes 100% when I remove that check. The issue seems to be with the way Rack::MockRequest wraps the :input string in an StringIO without any encoding work. Or, maybe we should be setting the encoding on the input string before passing it in. I should be able to work around this in Sinatra somehow.
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Joshua Peek<j...@joshpeek.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:25 PM, Christian
> > Neukirchen<chneukirc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I'd like to do a 1.0.1 maintenance soon of the rack-1.0 branch. Please
> >>> test your apps and frameworks on that branch. It should be a fully
> >>> compatible bug fix release.
> >> This is a good idea. When you consider it ready, I can write an
> >> announcement and do a formal release on Rubyforge and my servers.
> > Rails 2.3 is all systems go w/ rack 1.0.1.
> > Should wait on Ryan to test w/ Sinatra.
> Sorry. I'm way behind on ML/lighthouse duties.
> Sinatra looks good under the rack-1.0 branch. +1 for release.
> The Sinatra test suite fails like crazy under 1.9 due to this
> rack.input / external encoding Rack::Lint check:
> The Sinatra test suite puts Rack::Lint in the middleware pipeline for
> every test, though. I don't think that's a common practice. It passes
> 100% when I remove that check. The issue seems to be with the way
> Rack::MockRequest wraps the :input string in an StringIO without any
> encoding work. Or, maybe we should be setting the encoding on the
> input string before passing it in. I should be able to work around
> this in Sinatra somehow.
Moving the openid stuff into rack-contrib for 1.1 sounds good. I am on a vacation till the end of next week so as soon as I finish some personal things I can do the migrations.
Additionally, as memcached ruby gem seems to be more stable with 0.17, I plan on evaluating using that rather the memcache-client, unless there are any objections.
-- stadik.net
On Aug 3, 2009 4:00 PM, "Christian Neukirchen" <chneukirc...@gmail.com> wrote:
[Sorry for being rather inactive lately, my real life is too busy. ;)]
Joshua Peek <j...@joshpeek.com> writes: > I'd like to do a 1.0.1 maintenance
soon of the rack-1.0 ... This is a good idea. When you consider it ready, I can write an announcement and do a formal release on Rubyforge and my servers.
> I went though most of the Lighthouse tickets and only found one that >
really concerned 1.0. > > ... I'm open for Rack 1.1 suggestions. 1.1-discussed things can be merged into master now.
I have more time to do a release cycle in the next few weeks, so if we merge quickly, we can push a 1.1 pretty soon.
blink, do you still want to split the openid parts? 1.1 would be a good juncture.
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Scytrin dai Kinthra <scyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moving the openid stuff into rack-contrib for 1.1 sounds good. I am on a > vacation till the end of next week so as soon as I finish some personal > things I can do the migrations.
> Additionally, as memcached ruby gem seems to be more stable with 0.17, I > plan on evaluating using that rather the memcache-client, unless there are > any objections.
Alright!
Ok, everyone cherry-pick fixes for 1.0.1, and I can make a release this week (Thu or Fri).
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Scytrin dai Kinthra <scyt...@gmail.com > > wrote: >> Moving the openid stuff into rack-contrib for 1.1 sounds good. I am >> on a >> vacation till the end of next week so as soon as I finish some >> personal >> things I can do the migrations.
>> Additionally, as memcached ruby gem seems to be more stable with >> 0.17, I >> plan on evaluating using that rather the memcache-client, unless >> there are >> any objections.
> Alright!
> Ok, everyone cherry-pick fixes for 1.0.1, and I can make a release > this week (Thu or Fri).
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Scytrin dai Kinthra <scyt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Moving the openid stuff into rack-contrib for 1.1 sounds good. I am on a
> > vacation till the end of next week so as soon as I finish some personal
> > things I can do the migrations.
> > Additionally, as memcached ruby gem seems to be more stable with 0.17, I
> > plan on evaluating using that rather the memcache-client, unless there are
> > any objections.
> Alright!
> Ok, everyone cherry-pick fixes for 1.0.1, and I can make a release
> this week (Thu or Fri).
I sent a patch to the list a couple of days ago. I have been looking in the github page and it haven't been included. Does this mean that it will not be included in 1.0.1?
Thanks.
Daniel Rodríguez Troitiño.
El 16/10/2009, a las 22:30, Christian Neukirchen <chneukirc...@gmail.com> escribió:
