This is a large diff due to updating Rubyspec, MSpec and Ironruby-tags. tfpt review "/shelveset:rubyspec4;REDMOND\jdeville" Comment : Re-syncing MERLIN_EXTERNAL mspec to the head of MSpec to pick up new tests. Re-baselining to get new tests included.
The diff has only 94 bytes -----Original Message----- From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 17:35 To: IronRuby External Code Reviewers; Srivatsn Narayanan Cc: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org Subject: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 This is a large diff due to updating Rubyspec, MSpec and Ironruby-tags. tfpt review "/shelveset:rubyspec4;REDMOND\jdeville" Comment : Re-syncing MERLIN_EXTERNAL mspec to the head of MSpec to pick up new tests. Re-baselining to get new tests included.
Using the tf diff tool, I see that a lot of files are identical except for changes in newline characters (maybe \n changed to \r\n)? From my random sampling I hardly found any files that have actually changed. Maybe it would help to have a guideline about the preferred newline character. Also, regarding the baselining, how are we planning to track bugs and their related regression tests? If we are closing a bug on rubyforge and want to make sure that regression tests exist for that scenario, it would be good to have a link between the disabled test and the bug itself. In the IronPython testcode this is done by adding a disabled decorator to the test with the bug id. Here maybe a tag can have one more field to indicate the bug id? This is a change to the mspec runner itself and I''m not asking for it to be done with this shelveset but it''s something to be discussed about. -----Original Message----- From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon Darwin Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:48 AM To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 The diff has only 94 bytes -----Original Message----- From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 17:35 To: IronRuby External Code Reviewers; Srivatsn Narayanan Cc: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org Subject: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 This is a large diff due to updating Rubyspec, MSpec and Ironruby-tags. tfpt review "/shelveset:rubyspec4;REDMOND\jdeville" Comment : Re-syncing MERLIN_EXTERNAL mspec to the head of MSpec to pick up new tests. Re-baselining to get new tests included. _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
Grr. I was afraid that is why Curt had no changes. I think that is Git doing auto line endings. I''ll need to research that to figure out how to handle it. Regarding tracking bugs, the MSpec tag format has a place for comments. I took them out in the past when we had issues, but we can try again. The format is tag(comment):string JD> -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Srivatsn Narayanan > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:07 AM > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > Using the tf diff tool, I see that a lot of files are identical except > for changes in newline characters (maybe \n changed to \r\n)? From my > random sampling I hardly found any files that have actually changed. > Maybe it would help to have a guideline about the preferred newline > character. > > Also, regarding the baselining, how are we planning to track bugs and > their related regression tests? If we are closing a bug on rubyforge > and want to make sure that regression tests exist for that scenario, it > would be good to have a link between the disabled test and the bug > itself. In the IronPython testcode this is done by adding a disabled > decorator to the test with the bug id. Here maybe a tag can have one > more field to indicate the bug id? This is a change to the mspec runner > itself and I''m not asking for it to be done with this shelveset but > it''s something to be discussed about. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon Darwin > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:48 AM > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > The diff has only 94 bytes > > -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 17:35 > To: IronRuby External Code Reviewers; Srivatsn Narayanan > Cc: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > This is a large diff due to updating Rubyspec, MSpec and Ironruby-tags. > > tfpt review "/shelveset:rubyspec4;REDMOND\jdeville" > Comment : > Re-syncing MERLIN_EXTERNAL mspec to the head of MSpec to pick up new > tests. Re-baselining to get new tests included. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
It is possible that the many files that are only different in newlines is actually my fault. I think that Jim integrated a load of my changes to the rubyspecs last month but I was having newbie issues with Git and my setup changed a load of the line endings. I have now got over this issue after some mucking about with git config. I have subsequently had these changes incorporated into the official rubyspec repository on github. If the only files are ones that I broke then you can just bin those commits and use the versions from the official github repository instead. Is there much benefit in keeping a separate fork of mspec and rubyspec now anyway? Ironruby now seems to be able to run mspec unmodified and the guys who manage these projects seem happy to give responsible people commit rights to the official repositories. You could apply tags to versions of rubyspec or mspec to baseline versions that are good for ironruby. In addition there are a number of guards available in mspec that allow rubyspecs to be filtered based on ruby implementation and version. This is how the jruby and rubinius projects use rubyspec. In terms of tracking regression tests for a specific ironruby bug in rubyforge. How about you just list the descriptions of the examples (i.e. "it" blocks) that fail for the bug. It would be fairly easy to check that these now run ok. In many ways the tagged rubyspec examples are a direct representation of the bugs that are still to be solved. Pete -----Original Message----- From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Srivatsn Narayanan Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 18:07 To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 Using the tf diff tool, I see that a lot of files are identical except for changes in newline characters (maybe \n changed to \r\n)? From my random sampling I hardly found any files that have actually changed. Maybe it would help to have a guideline about the preferred newline character. Also, regarding the baselining, how are we planning to track bugs and their related regression tests? If we are closing a bug on rubyforge and want to make sure that regression tests exist for that scenario, it would be good to have a link between the disabled test and the bug itself. In the IronPython testcode this is done by adding a disabled decorator to the test with the bug id. Here maybe a tag can have one more field to indicate the bug id? This is a change to the mspec runner itself and I''m not asking for it to be done with this shelveset but it''s something to be discussed about. -----Original Message----- From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon Darwin Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:48 AM To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 The diff has only 94 bytes -----Original Message----- From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 17:35 To: IronRuby External Code Reviewers; Srivatsn Narayanan Cc: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org Subject: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 This is a large diff due to updating Rubyspec, MSpec and Ironruby-tags. tfpt review "/shelveset:rubyspec4;REDMOND\jdeville" Comment : Re-syncing MERLIN_EXTERNAL mspec to the head of MSpec to pick up new tests. Re-baselining to get new tests included. _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
Right now, the only reason I keep our fork of MSpec is to not force everyone to change again. We are running MSpec completely unmodified. I actually run it out of the official repo. We have some changes to Rubyspec that I haven''t pushed to the official repo due to lack of time. After we push those we may want to follow your idea. Some of our changes are to guards like you mention. Right now, most of the changes I make to RubySpecs are made to the official version then pulled into our repo, so I''m trying to head in that direction already. As for tags, I''ve already asked Brian (and he has agreed) to tag releases, so we can have people sync to tags already. The tags are a powerful concept, and eventually it''d be nice to tag failing tests with a unique tag, so you could run just the tests that demonstrate a bug. It''s fully possible, we just aren''t set up for it yet. I''d like to get the Rakefile cleaned up and more flexible to allow for that. JD> -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon Darwin > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:47 AM > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > It is possible that the many files that are only different in newlines > is > actually my fault. I think that Jim integrated a load of my changes to > the > rubyspecs last month but I was having newbie issues with Git and my > setup > changed a load of the line endings. I have now got over this issue > after > some mucking about with git config. > > I have subsequently had these changes incorporated into the official > rubyspec repository on github. If the only files are ones that I broke > then > you can just bin those commits and use the versions from the official > github > repository instead. > > Is there much benefit in keeping a separate fork of mspec and rubyspec > now > anyway? Ironruby now seems to be able to run mspec unmodified and the > guys > who manage these projects seem happy to give responsible people commit > rights to the official repositories. > You could apply tags to versions of rubyspec or mspec to baseline > versions > that are good for ironruby. > In addition there are a number of guards available in mspec that allow > rubyspecs to be filtered based on ruby implementation and version. > This is > how the jruby and rubinius projects use rubyspec. > > In terms of tracking regression tests for a specific ironruby bug in > rubyforge. How about you just list the descriptions of the examples > (i.e. > "it" blocks) that fail for the bug. It would be fairly easy to check > that > these now run ok. In many ways the tagged rubyspec examples are a > direct > representation of the bugs that are still to be solved. > > Pete > > -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Srivatsn > Narayanan > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 18:07 > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > Using the tf diff tool, I see that a lot of files are identical except > for > changes in newline characters (maybe \n changed to \r\n)? From my > random > sampling I hardly found any files that have actually changed. Maybe it > would > help to have a guideline about the preferred newline character. > > Also, regarding the baselining, how are we planning to track bugs and > their > related regression tests? If we are closing a bug on rubyforge and want > to > make sure that regression tests exist for that scenario, it would be > good to > have a link between the disabled test and the bug itself. In the > IronPython > testcode this is done by adding a disabled decorator to the test with > the > bug id. Here maybe a tag can have one more field to indicate the bug > id? > This is a change to the mspec runner itself and I''m not asking for it > to be > done with this shelveset but it''s something to be discussed about. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon > Darwin > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:48 AM > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > The diff has only 94 bytes > > -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 17:35 > To: IronRuby External Code Reviewers; Srivatsn Narayanan > Cc: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > This is a large diff due to updating Rubyspec, MSpec and Ironruby-tags. > > tfpt review "/shelveset:rubyspec4;REDMOND\jdeville" > Comment : > Re-syncing MERLIN_EXTERNAL mspec to the head of MSpec to pick up new > tests. Re-baselining to get new tests included. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
Srivatsn: do you see any problems, or can I go ahead with this. Peter: judging by the diff in Tomas''s latest Code review, there might be something wrong with the script we use to generate diff''s. That would explain the size. JD> -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:55 AM > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > Right now, the only reason I keep our fork of MSpec is to not force > everyone to change again. We are running MSpec completely unmodified. I > actually run it out of the official repo. We have some changes to > Rubyspec that I haven''t pushed to the official repo due to lack of > time. After we push those we may want to follow your idea. Some of our > changes are to guards like you mention. Right now, most of the changes > I make to RubySpecs are made to the official version then pulled into > our repo, so I''m trying to head in that direction already. > > As for tags, I''ve already asked Brian (and he has agreed) to tag > releases, so we can have people sync to tags already. > > The tags are a powerful concept, and eventually it''d be nice to tag > failing tests with a unique tag, so you could run just the tests that > demonstrate a bug. It''s fully possible, we just aren''t set up for it > yet. I''d like to get the Rakefile cleaned up and more flexible to allow > for that. > > > JD > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon Darwin > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:47 AM > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > It is possible that the many files that are only different in > newlines > > is > > actually my fault. I think that Jim integrated a load of my changes > to > > the > > rubyspecs last month but I was having newbie issues with Git and my > > setup > > changed a load of the line endings. I have now got over this issue > > after > > some mucking about with git config. > > > > I have subsequently had these changes incorporated into the official > > rubyspec repository on github. If the only files are ones that I > broke > > then > > you can just bin those commits and use the versions from the official > > github > > repository instead. > > > > Is there much benefit in keeping a separate fork of mspec and > rubyspec > > now > > anyway? Ironruby now seems to be able to run mspec unmodified and > the > > guys > > who manage these projects seem happy to give responsible people > commit > > rights to the official repositories. > > You could apply tags to versions of rubyspec or mspec to baseline > > versions > > that are good for ironruby. > > In addition there are a number of guards available in mspec that > allow > > rubyspecs to be filtered based on ruby implementation and version. > > This is > > how the jruby and rubinius projects use rubyspec. > > > > In terms of tracking regression tests for a specific ironruby bug in > > rubyforge. How about you just list the descriptions of the examples > > (i.e. > > "it" blocks) that fail for the bug. It would be fairly easy to check > > that > > these now run ok. In many ways the tagged rubyspec examples are a > > direct > > representation of the bugs that are still to be solved. > > > > Pete > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Srivatsn > > Narayanan > > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 18:07 > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > Using the tf diff tool, I see that a lot of files are identical > except > > for > > changes in newline characters (maybe \n changed to \r\n)? From my > > random > > sampling I hardly found any files that have actually changed. Maybe > it > > would > > help to have a guideline about the preferred newline character. > > > > Also, regarding the baselining, how are we planning to track bugs and > > their > > related regression tests? If we are closing a bug on rubyforge and > want > > to > > make sure that regression tests exist for that scenario, it would be > > good to > > have a link between the disabled test and the bug itself. In the > > IronPython > > testcode this is done by adding a disabled decorator to the test with > > the > > bug id. Here maybe a tag can have one more field to indicate the bug > > id? > > This is a change to the mspec runner itself and I''m not asking for it > > to be > > done with this shelveset but it''s something to be discussed about. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon > > Darwin > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:48 AM > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > The diff has only 94 bytes > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville > > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 17:35 > > To: IronRuby External Code Reviewers; Srivatsn Narayanan > > Cc: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > This is a large diff due to updating Rubyspec, MSpec and Ironruby- > tags. > > > > tfpt review "/shelveset:rubyspec4;REDMOND\jdeville" > > Comment : > > Re-syncing MERLIN_EXTERNAL mspec to the head of MSpec to pick up > new > > tests. Re-baselining to get new tests included. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
Go ahead with it but do publish whatever you find out about git''s line ending handling. I think my git config is screwed up as well in that respect. -----Original Message----- From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 1:51 PM To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 Srivatsn: do you see any problems, or can I go ahead with this. Peter: judging by the diff in Tomas''s latest Code review, there might be something wrong with the script we use to generate diff''s. That would explain the size. JD> -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:55 AM > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > Right now, the only reason I keep our fork of MSpec is to not force > everyone to change again. We are running MSpec completely unmodified. I > actually run it out of the official repo. We have some changes to > Rubyspec that I haven''t pushed to the official repo due to lack of > time. After we push those we may want to follow your idea. Some of our > changes are to guards like you mention. Right now, most of the changes > I make to RubySpecs are made to the official version then pulled into > our repo, so I''m trying to head in that direction already. > > As for tags, I''ve already asked Brian (and he has agreed) to tag > releases, so we can have people sync to tags already. > > The tags are a powerful concept, and eventually it''d be nice to tag > failing tests with a unique tag, so you could run just the tests that > demonstrate a bug. It''s fully possible, we just aren''t set up for it > yet. I''d like to get the Rakefile cleaned up and more flexible to allow > for that. > > > JD > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon Darwin > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:47 AM > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > It is possible that the many files that are only different in > newlines > > is > > actually my fault. I think that Jim integrated a load of my changes > to > > the > > rubyspecs last month but I was having newbie issues with Git and my > > setup > > changed a load of the line endings. I have now got over this issue > > after > > some mucking about with git config. > > > > I have subsequently had these changes incorporated into the official > > rubyspec repository on github. If the only files are ones that I > broke > > then > > you can just bin those commits and use the versions from the official > > github > > repository instead. > > > > Is there much benefit in keeping a separate fork of mspec and > rubyspec > > now > > anyway? Ironruby now seems to be able to run mspec unmodified and > the > > guys > > who manage these projects seem happy to give responsible people > commit > > rights to the official repositories. > > You could apply tags to versions of rubyspec or mspec to baseline > > versions > > that are good for ironruby. > > In addition there are a number of guards available in mspec that > allow > > rubyspecs to be filtered based on ruby implementation and version. > > This is > > how the jruby and rubinius projects use rubyspec. > > > > In terms of tracking regression tests for a specific ironruby bug in > > rubyforge. How about you just list the descriptions of the examples > > (i.e. > > "it" blocks) that fail for the bug. It would be fairly easy to check > > that > > these now run ok. In many ways the tagged rubyspec examples are a > > direct > > representation of the bugs that are still to be solved. > > > > Pete > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Srivatsn > > Narayanan > > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 18:07 > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > Using the tf diff tool, I see that a lot of files are identical > except > > for > > changes in newline characters (maybe \n changed to \r\n)? From my > > random > > sampling I hardly found any files that have actually changed. Maybe > it > > would > > help to have a guideline about the preferred newline character. > > > > Also, regarding the baselining, how are we planning to track bugs and > > their > > related regression tests? If we are closing a bug on rubyforge and > want > > to > > make sure that regression tests exist for that scenario, it would be > > good to > > have a link between the disabled test and the bug itself. In the > > IronPython > > testcode this is done by adding a disabled decorator to the test with > > the > > bug id. Here maybe a tag can have one more field to indicate the bug > > id? > > This is a change to the mspec runner itself and I''m not asking for it > > to be > > done with this shelveset but it''s something to be discussed about. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon > > Darwin > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:48 AM > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > The diff has only 94 bytes > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville > > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 17:35 > > To: IronRuby External Code Reviewers; Srivatsn Narayanan > > Cc: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > This is a large diff due to updating Rubyspec, MSpec and Ironruby- > tags. > > > > tfpt review "/shelveset:rubyspec4;REDMOND\jdeville" > > Comment : > > Re-syncing MERLIN_EXTERNAL mspec to the head of MSpec to pick up > new > > tests. Re-baselining to get new tests included. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core_______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
Sure thing JD> -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Srivatsn Narayanan > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 2:05 PM > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > Go ahead with it but do publish whatever you find out about git''s line > ending handling. I think my git config is screwed up as well in that > respect. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 1:51 PM > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > Srivatsn: do you see any problems, or can I go ahead with this. > > Peter: judging by the diff in Tomas''s latest Code review, there might > be something wrong with the script we use to generate diff''s. That > would explain the size. > > > JD > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:55 AM > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > Right now, the only reason I keep our fork of MSpec is to not force > > everyone to change again. We are running MSpec completely unmodified. > I > > actually run it out of the official repo. We have some changes to > > Rubyspec that I haven''t pushed to the official repo due to lack of > > time. After we push those we may want to follow your idea. Some of > our > > changes are to guards like you mention. Right now, most of the > changes > > I make to RubySpecs are made to the official version then pulled into > > our repo, so I''m trying to head in that direction already. > > > > As for tags, I''ve already asked Brian (and he has agreed) to tag > > releases, so we can have people sync to tags already. > > > > The tags are a powerful concept, and eventually it''d be nice to tag > > failing tests with a unique tag, so you could run just the tests that > > demonstrate a bug. It''s fully possible, we just aren''t set up for it > > yet. I''d like to get the Rakefile cleaned up and more flexible to > allow > > for that. > > > > > > JD > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > > > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon Darwin > > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:47 AM > > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > > > It is possible that the many files that are only different in > > newlines > > > is > > > actually my fault. I think that Jim integrated a load of my > changes > > to > > > the > > > rubyspecs last month but I was having newbie issues with Git and my > > > setup > > > changed a load of the line endings. I have now got over this issue > > > after > > > some mucking about with git config. > > > > > > I have subsequently had these changes incorporated into the > official > > > rubyspec repository on github. If the only files are ones that I > > broke > > > then > > > you can just bin those commits and use the versions from the > official > > > github > > > repository instead. > > > > > > Is there much benefit in keeping a separate fork of mspec and > > rubyspec > > > now > > > anyway? Ironruby now seems to be able to run mspec unmodified and > > the > > > guys > > > who manage these projects seem happy to give responsible people > > commit > > > rights to the official repositories. > > > You could apply tags to versions of rubyspec or mspec to baseline > > > versions > > > that are good for ironruby. > > > In addition there are a number of guards available in mspec that > > allow > > > rubyspecs to be filtered based on ruby implementation and version. > > > This is > > > how the jruby and rubinius projects use rubyspec. > > > > > > In terms of tracking regression tests for a specific ironruby bug > in > > > rubyforge. How about you just list the descriptions of the > examples > > > (i.e. > > > "it" blocks) that fail for the bug. It would be fairly easy to > check > > > that > > > these now run ok. In many ways the tagged rubyspec examples are a > > > direct > > > representation of the bugs that are still to be solved. > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Srivatsn > > > Narayanan > > > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 18:07 > > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > > > Using the tf diff tool, I see that a lot of files are identical > > except > > > for > > > changes in newline characters (maybe \n changed to \r\n)? From my > > > random > > > sampling I hardly found any files that have actually changed. Maybe > > it > > > would > > > help to have a guideline about the preferred newline character. > > > > > > Also, regarding the baselining, how are we planning to track bugs > and > > > their > > > related regression tests? If we are closing a bug on rubyforge and > > want > > > to > > > make sure that regression tests exist for that scenario, it would > be > > > good to > > > have a link between the disabled test and the bug itself. In the > > > IronPython > > > testcode this is done by adding a disabled decorator to the test > with > > > the > > > bug id. Here maybe a tag can have one more field to indicate the > bug > > > id? > > > This is a change to the mspec runner itself and I''m not asking for > it > > > to be > > > done with this shelveset but it''s something to be discussed about. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter > Bacon > > > Darwin > > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:48 AM > > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > > > The diff has only 94 bytes > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim > Deville > > > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 17:35 > > > To: IronRuby External Code Reviewers; Srivatsn Narayanan > > > Cc: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > Subject: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > > > This is a large diff due to updating Rubyspec, MSpec and Ironruby- > > tags. > > > > > > tfpt review "/shelveset:rubyspec4;REDMOND\jdeville" > > > Comment : > > > Re-syncing MERLIN_EXTERNAL mspec to the head of MSpec to pick up > > new > > > tests. Re-baselining to get new tests included. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
The key to fixing your line endings is to use "git-config core.autocrlf true" and "git-config core.safecrlf true". I believe this is now the default for msysgit at least as of Git-preview20080301.exe. What this does is convert line endings to crlf on the way out of git (i.e. into your working files) and back to lf only on the way back in. That way our windows apps don''t complain (or sneakily add the cr back in) and the git repository stays clean for unix users. Pete -----Original Message----- From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Srivatsn Narayanan Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 22:05 To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 Go ahead with it but do publish whatever you find out about git''s line ending handling. I think my git config is screwed up as well in that respect. -----Original Message----- From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 1:51 PM To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 Srivatsn: do you see any problems, or can I go ahead with this. Peter: judging by the diff in Tomas''s latest Code review, there might be something wrong with the script we use to generate diff''s. That would explain the size. JD> -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:55 AM > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > Right now, the only reason I keep our fork of MSpec is to not force > everyone to change again. We are running MSpec completely unmodified. I > actually run it out of the official repo. We have some changes to > Rubyspec that I haven''t pushed to the official repo due to lack of > time. After we push those we may want to follow your idea. Some of our > changes are to guards like you mention. Right now, most of the changes > I make to RubySpecs are made to the official version then pulled into > our repo, so I''m trying to head in that direction already. > > As for tags, I''ve already asked Brian (and he has agreed) to tag > releases, so we can have people sync to tags already. > > The tags are a powerful concept, and eventually it''d be nice to tag > failing tests with a unique tag, so you could run just the tests that > demonstrate a bug. It''s fully possible, we just aren''t set up for it > yet. I''d like to get the Rakefile cleaned up and more flexible to allow > for that. > > > JD > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon Darwin > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:47 AM > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > It is possible that the many files that are only different in > newlines > > is > > actually my fault. I think that Jim integrated a load of my changes > to > > the > > rubyspecs last month but I was having newbie issues with Git and my > > setup > > changed a load of the line endings. I have now got over this issue > > after > > some mucking about with git config. > > > > I have subsequently had these changes incorporated into the official > > rubyspec repository on github. If the only files are ones that I > broke > > then > > you can just bin those commits and use the versions from the official > > github > > repository instead. > > > > Is there much benefit in keeping a separate fork of mspec and > rubyspec > > now > > anyway? Ironruby now seems to be able to run mspec unmodified and > the > > guys > > who manage these projects seem happy to give responsible people > commit > > rights to the official repositories. > > You could apply tags to versions of rubyspec or mspec to baseline > > versions > > that are good for ironruby. > > In addition there are a number of guards available in mspec that > allow > > rubyspecs to be filtered based on ruby implementation and version. > > This is > > how the jruby and rubinius projects use rubyspec. > > > > In terms of tracking regression tests for a specific ironruby bug in > > rubyforge. How about you just list the descriptions of the examples > > (i.e. > > "it" blocks) that fail for the bug. It would be fairly easy to check > > that > > these now run ok. In many ways the tagged rubyspec examples are a > > direct > > representation of the bugs that are still to be solved. > > > > Pete > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Srivatsn > > Narayanan > > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 18:07 > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > Using the tf diff tool, I see that a lot of files are identical > except > > for > > changes in newline characters (maybe \n changed to \r\n)? From my > > random > > sampling I hardly found any files that have actually changed. Maybe > it > > would > > help to have a guideline about the preferred newline character. > > > > Also, regarding the baselining, how are we planning to track bugs and > > their > > related regression tests? If we are closing a bug on rubyforge and > want > > to > > make sure that regression tests exist for that scenario, it would be > > good to > > have a link between the disabled test and the bug itself. In the > > IronPython > > testcode this is done by adding a disabled decorator to the test with > > the > > bug id. Here maybe a tag can have one more field to indicate the bug > > id? > > This is a change to the mspec runner itself and I''m not asking for it > > to be > > done with this shelveset but it''s something to be discussed about. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon > > Darwin > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:48 AM > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > The diff has only 94 bytes > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville > > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 17:35 > > To: IronRuby External Code Reviewers; Srivatsn Narayanan > > Cc: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > This is a large diff due to updating Rubyspec, MSpec and Ironruby- > tags. > > > > tfpt review "/shelveset:rubyspec4;REDMOND\jdeville" > > Comment : > > Re-syncing MERLIN_EXTERNAL mspec to the head of MSpec to pick up > new > > tests. Re-baselining to get new tests included. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core_______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core _______________________________________________ Ironruby-core mailing list Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
Thanks, I''ll check on those two configs. Can they be set on the main repo? Or only on local copies? JD> -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon Darwin > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 2:18 PM > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > The key to fixing your line endings is to use "git-config core.autocrlf > true" and "git-config core.safecrlf true". > I believe this is now the default for msysgit at least as of > Git-preview20080301.exe. > What this does is convert line endings to crlf on the way out of git > (i.e. > into your working files) and back to lf only on the way back in. > That way our windows apps don''t complain (or sneakily add the cr back > in) > and the git repository stays clean for unix users. > Pete > > -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Srivatsn > Narayanan > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 22:05 > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > Go ahead with it but do publish whatever you find out about git''s line > ending handling. I think my git config is screwed up as well in that > respect. > > -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 1:51 PM > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > Srivatsn: do you see any problems, or can I go ahead with this. > > Peter: judging by the diff in Tomas''s latest Code review, there might > be > something wrong with the script we use to generate diff''s. That would > explain the size. > > > JD > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:55 AM > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > Right now, the only reason I keep our fork of MSpec is to not force > > everyone to change again. We are running MSpec completely unmodified. > I > > actually run it out of the official repo. We have some changes to > > Rubyspec that I haven''t pushed to the official repo due to lack of > > time. After we push those we may want to follow your idea. Some of > our > > changes are to guards like you mention. Right now, most of the > changes > > I make to RubySpecs are made to the official version then pulled into > > our repo, so I''m trying to head in that direction already. > > > > As for tags, I''ve already asked Brian (and he has agreed) to tag > > releases, so we can have people sync to tags already. > > > > The tags are a powerful concept, and eventually it''d be nice to tag > > failing tests with a unique tag, so you could run just the tests that > > demonstrate a bug. It''s fully possible, we just aren''t set up for it > > yet. I''d like to get the Rakefile cleaned up and more flexible to > allow > > for that. > > > > > > JD > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > > > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon Darwin > > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:47 AM > > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > > > It is possible that the many files that are only different in > > newlines > > > is > > > actually my fault. I think that Jim integrated a load of my > changes > > to > > > the > > > rubyspecs last month but I was having newbie issues with Git and my > > > setup > > > changed a load of the line endings. I have now got over this issue > > > after > > > some mucking about with git config. > > > > > > I have subsequently had these changes incorporated into the > official > > > rubyspec repository on github. If the only files are ones that I > > broke > > > then > > > you can just bin those commits and use the versions from the > official > > > github > > > repository instead. > > > > > > Is there much benefit in keeping a separate fork of mspec and > > rubyspec > > > now > > > anyway? Ironruby now seems to be able to run mspec unmodified and > > the > > > guys > > > who manage these projects seem happy to give responsible people > > commit > > > rights to the official repositories. > > > You could apply tags to versions of rubyspec or mspec to baseline > > > versions > > > that are good for ironruby. > > > In addition there are a number of guards available in mspec that > > allow > > > rubyspecs to be filtered based on ruby implementation and version. > > > This is > > > how the jruby and rubinius projects use rubyspec. > > > > > > In terms of tracking regression tests for a specific ironruby bug > in > > > rubyforge. How about you just list the descriptions of the > examples > > > (i.e. > > > "it" blocks) that fail for the bug. It would be fairly easy to > check > > > that > > > these now run ok. In many ways the tagged rubyspec examples are a > > > direct > > > representation of the bugs that are still to be solved. > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Srivatsn > > > Narayanan > > > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 18:07 > > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > > > Using the tf diff tool, I see that a lot of files are identical > > except > > > for > > > changes in newline characters (maybe \n changed to \r\n)? From my > > > random > > > sampling I hardly found any files that have actually changed. Maybe > > it > > > would > > > help to have a guideline about the preferred newline character. > > > > > > Also, regarding the baselining, how are we planning to track bugs > and > > > their > > > related regression tests? If we are closing a bug on rubyforge and > > want > > > to > > > make sure that regression tests exist for that scenario, it would > be > > > good to > > > have a link between the disabled test and the bug itself. In the > > > IronPython > > > testcode this is done by adding a disabled decorator to the test > with > > > the > > > bug id. Here maybe a tag can have one more field to indicate the > bug > > > id? > > > This is a change to the mspec runner itself and I''m not asking for > it > > > to be > > > done with this shelveset but it''s something to be discussed about. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter > Bacon > > > Darwin > > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:48 AM > > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > > > The diff has only 94 bytes > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim > Deville > > > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 17:35 > > > To: IronRuby External Code Reviewers; Srivatsn Narayanan > > > Cc: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > Subject: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > > > This is a large diff due to updating Rubyspec, MSpec and Ironruby- > > tags. > > > > > > tfpt review "/shelveset:rubyspec4;REDMOND\jdeville" > > > Comment : > > > Re-syncing MERLIN_EXTERNAL mspec to the head of MSpec to pick up > > new > > > tests. Re-baselining to get new tests included. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
Dude, you''re such a git newbee =) It changes the files in your .git folder, and those can be pushed back up.> -----Original Message----- > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 2:23 PM > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > Thanks, I''ll check on those two configs. Can they be set on the main > repo? Or only on local copies? > > > JD > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon Darwin > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 2:18 PM > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > The key to fixing your line endings is to use "git-config > core.autocrlf > > true" and "git-config core.safecrlf true". > > I believe this is now the default for msysgit at least as of > > Git-preview20080301.exe. > > What this does is convert line endings to crlf on the way out of git > > (i.e. > > into your working files) and back to lf only on the way back in. > > That way our windows apps don''t complain (or sneakily add the cr back > > in) > > and the git repository stays clean for unix users. > > Pete > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Srivatsn > > Narayanan > > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 22:05 > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > Go ahead with it but do publish whatever you find out about git''s > line > > ending handling. I think my git config is screwed up as well in that > > respect. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 1:51 PM > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > Srivatsn: do you see any problems, or can I go ahead with this. > > > > Peter: judging by the diff in Tomas''s latest Code review, there might > > be > > something wrong with the script we use to generate diff''s. That would > > explain the size. > > > > > > JD > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > > > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim Deville > > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:55 AM > > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > > > Right now, the only reason I keep our fork of MSpec is to not force > > > everyone to change again. We are running MSpec completely > unmodified. > > I > > > actually run it out of the official repo. We have some changes to > > > Rubyspec that I haven''t pushed to the official repo due to lack of > > > time. After we push those we may want to follow your idea. Some of > > our > > > changes are to guards like you mention. Right now, most of the > > changes > > > I make to RubySpecs are made to the official version then pulled > into > > > our repo, so I''m trying to head in that direction already. > > > > > > As for tags, I''ve already asked Brian (and he has agreed) to tag > > > releases, so we can have people sync to tags already. > > > > > > The tags are a powerful concept, and eventually it''d be nice to tag > > > failing tests with a unique tag, so you could run just the tests > that > > > demonstrate a bug. It''s fully possible, we just aren''t set up for > it > > > yet. I''d like to get the Rakefile cleaned up and more flexible to > > allow > > > for that. > > > > > > > > > JD > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core- > > > > bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter Bacon Darwin > > > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 10:47 AM > > > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > > > > > It is possible that the many files that are only different in > > > newlines > > > > is > > > > actually my fault. I think that Jim integrated a load of my > > changes > > > to > > > > the > > > > rubyspecs last month but I was having newbie issues with Git and > my > > > > setup > > > > changed a load of the line endings. I have now got over this > issue > > > > after > > > > some mucking about with git config. > > > > > > > > I have subsequently had these changes incorporated into the > > official > > > > rubyspec repository on github. If the only files are ones that I > > > broke > > > > then > > > > you can just bin those commits and use the versions from the > > official > > > > github > > > > repository instead. > > > > > > > > Is there much benefit in keeping a separate fork of mspec and > > > rubyspec > > > > now > > > > anyway? Ironruby now seems to be able to run mspec unmodified > and > > > the > > > > guys > > > > who manage these projects seem happy to give responsible people > > > commit > > > > rights to the official repositories. > > > > You could apply tags to versions of rubyspec or mspec to baseline > > > > versions > > > > that are good for ironruby. > > > > In addition there are a number of guards available in mspec that > > > allow > > > > rubyspecs to be filtered based on ruby implementation and > version. > > > > This is > > > > how the jruby and rubinius projects use rubyspec. > > > > > > > > In terms of tracking regression tests for a specific ironruby bug > > in > > > > rubyforge. How about you just list the descriptions of the > > examples > > > > (i.e. > > > > "it" blocks) that fail for the bug. It would be fairly easy to > > check > > > > that > > > > these now run ok. In many ways the tagged rubyspec examples are > a > > > > direct > > > > representation of the bugs that are still to be solved. > > > > > > > > Pete > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of > Srivatsn > > > > Narayanan > > > > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 18:07 > > > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > > > > > Using the tf diff tool, I see that a lot of files are identical > > > except > > > > for > > > > changes in newline characters (maybe \n changed to \r\n)? From my > > > > random > > > > sampling I hardly found any files that have actually changed. > Maybe > > > it > > > > would > > > > help to have a guideline about the preferred newline character. > > > > > > > > Also, regarding the baselining, how are we planning to track bugs > > and > > > > their > > > > related regression tests? If we are closing a bug on rubyforge > and > > > want > > > > to > > > > make sure that regression tests exist for that scenario, it would > > be > > > > good to > > > > have a link between the disabled test and the bug itself. In the > > > > IronPython > > > > testcode this is done by adding a disabled decorator to the test > > with > > > > the > > > > bug id. Here maybe a tag can have one more field to indicate the > > bug > > > > id? > > > > This is a change to the mspec runner itself and I''m not asking > for > > it > > > > to be > > > > done with this shelveset but it''s something to be discussed > about. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Peter > > Bacon > > > > Darwin > > > > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 9:48 AM > > > > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > > Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > > > > > The diff has only 94 bytes > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > > > > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Jim > > Deville > > > > Sent: Monday,29 September 29, 2008 17:35 > > > > To: IronRuby External Code Reviewers; Srivatsn Narayanan > > > > Cc: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > > Subject: [Ironruby-core] Code Review: rubyspec4 > > > > > > > > This is a large diff due to updating Rubyspec, MSpec and > Ironruby- > > > tags. > > > > > > > > tfpt review "/shelveset:rubyspec4;REDMOND\jdeville" > > > > Comment : > > > > Re-syncing MERLIN_EXTERNAL mspec to the head of MSpec to pick > up > > > new > > > > tests. Re-baselining to get new tests included. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core
I get this when running rake compile. Just checked out from rubyforge, and I''ve previously successfully built many other revisions of IR on this box. Should I just roll back to a previous version, or am I doing something wrong? (in c:/development/ironruby) Read in 17 resources from "c:\development\ironruby\src\microsoft.scripting\math\MathResources.resx" Writing resource file... Done. warning CS1685: The predefined type ''System.Runtime.CompilerServices.ExtensionAttribute'' is defined in multiple assemblies in the global alias; using definition from ''c:\development\ironruby\src\microsoft.scripting\utils\extension.cs'' warning CS1685: The predefined type ''System.Runtime.CompilerServices.ExtensionAttribute'' is defined in multiple assemblies in the global alias; using definition from ''c:\development\ironruby\src\ironruby\extension.cs'' warning CS1685: The predefined type ''System.Runtime.CompilerServices.ExtensionAttribute'' is defined in multiple assemblies in the global alias; using definition from ''c:\development\ironruby\build\debug\Microsoft.Scripting.Core.dll'' initializers.generated.cs(6813,17): error CS0123: No overload for ''Add'' matches delegate ''System.Func<Microsoft.Scripting.Runtime.CodeContext,IronRuby.StandardLibrary.BigDecimal.BigDecimal,object,object,object>'' c:\development\ironruby\build\debug\Microsoft.Scripting.Core.dll: (Location of symbol related to previous error) bigdecimal\BigDecimalOps.cs(352,30): (Location of symbol related to previous error) initializers.generated.cs(6822,17): error CS0123: No overload for ''Coerce'' matches delegate ''System.Func<Microsoft.Scripting.Runtime.CodeContext,IronRuby.StandardLibrary.BigDecimal.BigDecimal,double,IronRuby.Builtins.RubyArray>'' c:\development\ironruby\build\debug\Microsoft.Scripting.Core.dll: (Location of symbol related to previous error) bigdecimal\BigDecimalOps.cs(268,38): (Location of symbol related to previous error) bigdecimal\BigDecimalOps.cs(272,38): (Location of symbol related to previous error) bigdecimal\BigDecimalOps.cs(276,38): (Location of symbol related to previous error) bigdecimal\BigDecimalOps.cs(280,38): (Location of symbol related to previous error) initializers.generated.cs(6876,17): error CS0123: No overload for ''Inspect'' matches delegate ''System.Func<Microsoft.Scripting.Runtime.CodeContext,IronRuby.StandardLibrary.BigDecimal.BigDecimal,IronRuby.Builtins.MutableString>'' c:\development\ironruby\build\debug\Microsoft.Scripting.Core.dll: (Location of symbol related to previous error) bigdecimal\BigDecimalOps.cs(257,42): (Location of symbol related to previous error) initializers.generated.cs(6897,17): error CS0123: No overload for ''Multiply'' matches delegate ''System.Func<Microsoft.Scripting.Runtime.CodeContext,IronRuby.StandardLibrary.BigDecimal.BigDecimal,object,object,object>'' c:\development\ironruby\build\debug\Microsoft.Scripting.Core.dll: (Location of symbol related to previous error) bigdecimal\BigDecimalOps.cs(438,30): (Location of symbol related to previous error) initializers.generated.cs(6953,17): error CS0123: No overload for ''Subtract'' matches delegate ''System.Func<Microsoft.Scripting.Runtime.CodeContext,IronRuby.StandardLibrary.BigDecimal.BigDecimal,object,object,object>'' c:\development\ironruby\build\debug\Microsoft.Scripting.Core.dll: (Location of symbol related to previous error) bigdecimal\BigDecimalOps.cs(395,30): (Location of symbol related to previous error) initializers.generated.cs(6972,17): error CS0123: No overload for ''ToString'' matches delegate ''System.Func<Microsoft.Scripting.Runtime.CodeContext,IronRuby.StandardLibrary.BigDecimal.BigDecimal,object,IronRuby.Builtins.MutableString>'' c:\development\ironruby\build\debug\Microsoft.Scripting.Core.dll: (Location of symbol related to previous error) bigdecimal\BigDecimalOps.cs(228,42): (Location of symbol related to previous error) bigdecimal\BigDecimalOps.cs(232,42): (Location of symbol related to previous error) bigdecimal\BigDecimalOps.cs(236,42): (Location of symbol related to previous error) c:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\mscorlib.dll: (Location of symbol related to previous error) initializers.generated.cs(6998,17): error CS0123: No overload for ''InducedFrom'' matches delegate ''System.Func<Microsoft.Scripting.Runtime.CodeContext,IronRuby.Builtins.RubyClass,object,IronRuby.StandardLibrary.BigDecimal.BigDecimal>'' c:\development\ironruby\build\debug\Microsoft.Scripting.Core.dll: (Location of symbol related to previous error) bigdecimal\BigDecimalOps.cs(178,34): (Location of symbol related to previous error) bigdecimal\BigDecimalOps.cs(182,34): (Location of symbol related to previous error) bigdecimal\BigDecimalOps.cs(186,34): (Location of symbol related to previous error) bigdecimal\BigDecimalOps.cs(190,34): (Location of symbol related to previous error) initializers.generated.cs(7003,17): error CS0123: No overload for ''Limit'' matches delegate ''System.Func<Microsoft.Scripting.Runtime.CodeContext,IronRuby.Builtins.RubyClass,object,int>'' c:\development\ironruby\build\debug\Microsoft.Scripting.Core.dll: (Location of symbol related to previous error) bigdecimal\BigDecimalOps.cs(158,27): (Location of symbol related to previous error) bigdecimal\BigDecimalOps.cs(164,27): (Location of symbol related to previous error)
I recently gave a presentation about IronRuby to my local .NET user group. As none of them knew anything about ruby it''s about 2/3''rds introduction to ruby and 1/3''rd talking about IronRuby and the DLR specifically. As part of this I also built a small project which is basically "IRB in your winforms app". I found it to be a really effective way of showing off :-) I''ve posted links on my blog for the members of the local DNUG to have a look, but I figured other IronRubyists might be interested, so if you are, Link to blog entry showing presentation slides Link to blog entry explaining interactive console thing Cheers, and thanks to all the IronRuby team for all their hard work :-)
Loved the Borat photo and the Duck!
But to be fair, your IsCool function could have been written:
public bool IsCool() { return m_name.Contains("0"); }
And the new C# 3.0 Property stuff would have let you write:
public string Name { get; set; }
I used to use these kinds of arguments for C# 2.0, but Anders keeps on making it
harder to continue doing so :)
Thanks,
-John
From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at
rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Orion Edwards
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 3:52 PM
To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
Subject: [Ironruby-core] Presentation
I recently gave a presentation about IronRuby to my local .NET user group.
As none of them knew anything about ruby it''s about 2/3''rds
introduction to ruby and 1/3''rd talking about IronRuby and the DLR
specifically.
As part of this I also built a small project which is basically "IRB in
your winforms app".
I found it to be a really effective way of showing off :-)
I''ve posted links on my blog for the members of the local DNUG to have
a look, but I figured other IronRubyists might be interested, so if you are,
Link to blog entry showing presentation
slides<http://orionedwards.blogspot.com/2008/09/ironruby-presentation.html>
Link to blog entry explaining interactive console
thing<http://orionedwards.blogspot.com/2008/09/embedded-ironruby-interactive-console.html>
Cheers, and thanks to all the IronRuby team for all their hard work :-)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20080930/8f01247d/attachment.html>
I agree, Anders doesn''t allow the argument to be so convincing. However, I generally go 2.0 > 3.0 > Ruby - Ruby still better.... :) On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 4:36 PM, John Lam (IRONRUBY) <jflam at microsoft.com> wrote:> Loved the Borat photo and the Duck! > > > > But to be fair, your IsCool function could have been written: > > > > public bool IsCool() { return m_name.Contains("0"); } > > > > And the new C# 3.0 Property stuff would have let you write: > > > > public string Name { get; set; } > > > > I used to use these kinds of arguments for C# 2.0, but Anders keeps on > making it harder to continue doing so J > > > > Thanks, > > -John > > > > From: ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org > [mailto:ironruby-core-bounces at rubyforge.org] On Behalf Of Orion Edwards > Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 3:52 PM > To: ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > Subject: [Ironruby-core] Presentation > > > > I recently gave a presentation about IronRuby to my local .NET user group. > > As none of them knew anything about ruby it''s about 2/3''rds introduction to > ruby and 1/3''rd talking about IronRuby and the DLR specifically. > > As part of this I also built a small project which is basically "IRB in your > winforms app". > I found it to be a really effective way of showing off :-) > > I''ve posted links on my blog for the members of the local DNUG to have a > look, but I figured other IronRubyists might be interested, so if you are, > > Link to blog entry showing presentation slides > > Link to blog entry explaining interactive console thing > > Cheers, and thanks to all the IronRuby team for all their hard work :-) > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > >
> I agree, Anders doesn''t allow the argument to be so convincing. > However, I generally go 2.0 > 3.0 > Ruby - Ruby still better.... :)Sorry about the pendantry, but I think you wanted that to say "2.0 < 3.0 < Ruby" :) -Curt
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Curt Hagenlocher <curth at microsoft.com>wrote:> > I agree, Anders doesn''t allow the argument to be so convincing. > > However, I generally go 2.0 > 3.0 > Ruby - Ruby still better.... :) > > Sorry about the pendantry, but I think you wanted that to say > "2.0 < 3.0 < Ruby" >I hope that was what he was trying to say. Otherwise, he could be the IT Director at my old job.> :) > > -Curt > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/ironruby-core/attachments/20080930/fb453a18/attachment-0001.html>
hehehe! I actually meant how the code can progresses and improves as you move along the line :) 2.0 (not great) --> 3.0 (better) --> Ruby (Much better!) Make sense? On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Mike Moore <blowmage at gmail.com> wrote:> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:37 AM, Curt Hagenlocher <curth at microsoft.com> > wrote: >> >> > I agree, Anders doesn''t allow the argument to be so convincing. >> > However, I generally go 2.0 > 3.0 > Ruby - Ruby still better.... :) >> >> Sorry about the pendantry, but I think you wanted that to say >> "2.0 < 3.0 < Ruby" > > I hope that was what he was trying to say. Otherwise, he could be the IT > Director at my old job. > >> >> :) >> >> -Curt >> _______________________________________________ >> Ironruby-core mailing list >> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org >> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > > > _______________________________________________ > Ironruby-core mailing list > Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core > >