Hey guys- Whyday was awesome. Congrats on getting Policeman out the door! :) So.... we had a thread about this before, but now that we're actually done with 3.0, let's talk about what we want for WalkAround. The biggest thing is that 1.9.2 _is_ out now. I wouldn't mind having that in a 3.1 release, but what else should we have in 3.1? Thoughts? One more thing: I'm going to start a 'development' branch on shoes/shoes from now. I think that master should only contain release builds, this way we can backport bugfixes if we need to. Also, I still have to freaking take care of the Wiki, and so I'll do a little writeup about all of that then.
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 10:04 -0400, Steve Klabnik wrote: > Hey guys- > > Whyday was awesome. Congrats on getting Policeman out the door! :) > > So.... we had a thread about this before, but now that we're actually > done with 3.0, let's talk about what we want for WalkAround. > I have some modest ideas ;^) > The biggest thing is that 1.9.2 _is_ out now. I wouldn't mind having > that in a 3.1 release, but what else should we have in 3.1? Thoughts? Nor would I, if 1.9.2 can be built on all platforms and Shoes included builtin libraries and gems support 1.9.2. I too think we need something more than sample apps (which are to demonstrate features to new Shoes codes). We also need to scripts that test difficult things, in particular, threading. A bittorent client and GUI might satisfy the thread torture test but we probably need simpler thread tests that don't have to run for hours before deadlocking or segfaulting. Other things that need more testing scripts (IMO) are gem handling. I'd like to understand the widget issues better and see if we can do something about them. And then there is the elephant in the room: VLC using current VLC libraries. I suspect that's a Thread torture case too and I'd really want to wait for 1.9.2 for that. There's also that issues list on github. > > One more thing: I'm going to start a 'development' branch on > shoes/shoes from now. I think that master should only contain release > builds, this way we can backport bugfixes if we need to. Also, I still > have to freaking take care of the Wiki, and so I'll do a little > writeup about all of that then.
Hi folks, Listing for WalkAbout is - ruby : 1.9.2 support - thread : more stable - widget : more stable - video : the latest VLC support - packager: fix for all platforms Right? Additional items? BTW. I read this post today: RubyInstaller 1.9.2-p0 released - Newer DevKit and instructions http://groups.google.com/group/rubyinstaller/browse_thread/thread/67902a04f12cc726 RubyInstaller team moved into GCC 4.5.0. I think this is a big jump for Shoes, especially under req directory (binject, bloopsaphone, ftsearch, hpricot, json, sqlite3, chipmunk). Is it better to get along with RubyInstaller team? Or to support ruby 1.9.2 with GCC 3.4.5 by ourselves? ashbb
My gcc is 4.4.1, so I don't expect a problem from 4.5. I'll use whatever gcc comes from my Linux distribution because there are far too many ways to get it wrong. Another interesting point is that 1.9.2 installs its libraries as 1.9.1 (replacing the existing 1.9.1 libs). Bizarre choice. On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 17:55 +0900, ashbb wrote: > > RubyInstaller team moved into GCC 4.5.0. > I think this is a big jump for Shoes, especially under req directory > (binject, bloopsaphone, ftsearch, hpricot, json, sqlite3, chipmunk). > > Is it better to get along with RubyInstaller team? > Or to support ruby 1.9.2 with GCC 3.4.5 by ourselves? > > ashbb >
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Cecil Coupe <ccoupe@cableone.net> wrote: > My gcc is 4.4.1, so I don't expect a problem from 4.5. I'll use whatever > gcc comes from my Linux distribution because there are far too many ways > to get it wrong. > > Another interesting point is that 1.9.2 installs its libraries as > 1.9.1 (replacing the existing 1.9.1 libs). Bizarre choice. > Probably something to do with Ubuntu, as far as I remember they all go into 1.9 on Arch Linux (same occurs with 1.8, if you have 1.8.6 and you install 1.8.7, it'll still install them under the 1.8 directory.)—it goes by major version rather than minor. > > On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 17:55 +0900, ashbb wrote: > > > > > RubyInstaller team moved into GCC 4.5.0. > > I think this is a big jump for Shoes, especially under req directory > > (binject, bloopsaphone, ftsearch, hpricot, json, sqlite3, chipmunk). > > > > Is it better to get along with RubyInstaller team? > > Or to support ruby 1.9.2 with GCC 3.4.5 by ourselves? > > > > ashbb > > > > > -- ~devyn
Nope, its an explicit decision by ruby-core, something about how the library is still 1.9.1 compatible. It's kinda dumb. On Aug 22, 2010 2:42 AM, "Devyn Cairns" <devyn.cairns@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Cecil Coupe <ccoupe@cableone.net> wrote: > >> My gcc is 4.4.1, so I don't expect a problem from 4.5. I'll use whatever >> gcc comes from my Linux distribution because there are far too many ways >> to get it wrong. >> >> Another interesting point is that 1.9.2 installs its libraries as >> 1.9.1 (replacing the existing 1.9.1 libs). Bizarre choice. >> > > Probably something to do with Ubuntu, as far as I remember they all go into > 1.9 on Arch Linux (same occurs with 1.8, if you have 1.8.6 and you install > 1.8.7, it'll still install them under the 1.8 directory.)—it goes by major > version rather than minor. > > >> >> On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 17:55 +0900, ashbb wrote: >> >> > >> > RubyInstaller team moved into GCC 4.5.0. >> > I think this is a big jump for Shoes, especially under req directory >> > (binject, bloopsaphone, ftsearch, hpricot, json, sqlite3, chipmunk). >> > >> > Is it better to get along with RubyInstaller team? >> > Or to support ruby 1.9.2 with GCC 3.4.5 by ourselves? >> > >> > ashbb >> > >> >> >> > > > -- > ~devyn
Huh. Should just be put in "1.9" if you ask me, like they did with 1.8, or in separate directories for each version. On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Steve Klabnik <steve@steveklabnik.com>wrote: > Nope, its an explicit decision by ruby-core, something about how the > library is still 1.9.1 compatible. It's kinda dumb. > > On Aug 22, 2010 2:42 AM, "Devyn Cairns" <devyn.cairns@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Cecil Coupe <ccoupe@cableone.net> > wrote: > > > >> My gcc is 4.4.1, so I don't expect a problem from 4.5. I'll use whatever > >> gcc comes from my Linux distribution because there are far too many ways > >> to get it wrong. > >> > >> Another interesting point is that 1.9.2 installs its libraries as > >> 1.9.1 (replacing the existing 1.9.1 libs). Bizarre choice. > >> > > > > Probably something to do with Ubuntu, as far as I remember they all go > into > > 1.9 on Arch Linux (same occurs with 1.8, if you have 1.8.6 and you > install > > 1.8.7, it'll still install them under the 1.8 directory.)—it goes by > major > > version rather than minor. > > > > > >> > >> On Sat, 2010-08-21 at 17:55 +0900, ashbb wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > RubyInstaller team moved into GCC 4.5.0. > >> > I think this is a big jump for Shoes, especially under req directory > >> > (binject, bloopsaphone, ftsearch, hpricot, json, sqlite3, chipmunk). > >> > > >> > Is it better to get along with RubyInstaller team? > >> > Or to support ruby 1.9.2 with GCC 3.4.5 by ourselves? > >> > > >> > ashbb > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > ~devyn > -- ~devyn
> My gcc is 4.4.1, so I don't expect a problem from 4.5. Good news! I understand it's not so difficult for Linux. When I've tried building Policeman for Windows with ruby 1.9.1 and gcc 4.5.0 about half a year ago, I didn't succeed. > Another interesting point is that 1.9.2 installs its libraries as > 1.9.1 (replacing the existing 1.9.1 libs). Bizarre choice. Aha, interesting! If it's the same for Windows, it's cool. Okay anyway, I'll try again. :) ashbb