Rails core - Sep 2005 - Patches awaiting decision

I hope I''m not breaching etiquette too badly. It''s not my
intention to
offend or pressurize anyone. Also, I admit my personal motivation.

I had a look at the list of pending patches 
(http://dev.rubyonrails.org/report/3) to get an idea what patches are 
currently open and see what their state is. From some of my own patches 
I know that they are basically ready for either inclusion or refusal.

Thus, I went through the list, looking for patches satisfying a few 
criteria: I understand what they are about. There''s no controversial 
discussion taking place. For proposed changes that are non-trivial, the 
patch includes or adapts unit tests. The patch appears finished and is 
just waiting for a yes or no decision.

So, without much further ado, here''s a list of the patches, that, by my
lights, can be closed one way or another.


#809 convert boolean form attributes
#1691 javascript_tag should wrap contents within a CDATA section
#1804 belongs_to relationship fails to save relationship key if records 
saved in wrong order
#1835 Dump migration info
#1837 PostgreSQL: unescape_bytea misses rare case
#1848 Automatic adapter collection for ActiveRecord
#1850 Fix :default in migrations for PG 7.x
#1860 Precise time calculations
#1887 Make collection_singular_ids= gracefully handle nil argument
#1888 Use Element.Class.* instead of Element.*ClassName
#1891 FormHelper documentation is confusing
#1893 Prototype: Field.activate: Select only when possible
#1899 link_to_remote should have href to support non-javascript browsers 
and spiders
#1920 ActiveSupport loading of controllers
#1924 ActiveRecord acts_as_tree dependent optional
#1932 acts_as_audited
#1945 Additional unittests for Routes
#1949 Set tablename pre- and suffix on connect
#1974 acts_as_versioned
#1975 page/fragment file caching for windows
#1983 associations with incorrect class_name have no error message to 
call their own
#2023 Saving a record with two unsaved belongs_to associations pointing 
to the same object fails [better tested duplicate of #1804]


Michael

-- 
Michael Schuerig                          Thinking is trying to make up
mailto:michael@schuerig.de                for a gap in one''s education.
http://www.schuerig.de/michael/                          --Gilbert Ryle

> Thus, I went through the list, looking for patches satisfying a few
> criteria: I understand what they are about. There''s no
controversial
> discussion taking place. For proposed changes that are non-trivial, the
> patch includes or adapts unit tests. The patch appears finished and is
> just waiting for a yes or no decision.
Thanks for looking through these. It should be said, though, that
patches are often put on hold because I either don''t like the
implementation (but do like or at least want to ponder the idea of the
proposal), I don''t think the testing coverage is sufficient (and thus
am not confident that applying wouldn''t cause trouble), I want to
create a new way to handle something (like the many acts), or finally
that I''ve delegated the decision to someone else.

Hope that creates a bit more transparency into why patches are not
being applied as rapidly as could perhaps be nice.
-- 
David Heinemeier Hansson
http://www.loudthinking.com -- Broadcasting Brain
http://www.basecamphq.com   -- Online project management
http://www.backpackit.com   -- Personal information manager
http://www.rubyonrails.com  -- Web-application framework