librelist archives

« back to archive

Attempted building Shoes with Ruby 1.9.1p429

Attempted building Shoes with Ruby 1.9.1p429

From:
ashbb
Date:
2010-07-07 @ 12:47
Hi all,

I've tried to build Shoes for Windows with Ruby 1.9.1p429 (released on Jul
2nd).
I could build with no problems. But it couldn't launch. :(

After some debugging, I noticed the following on Shoes:

- Dir['*'] or Dir.glob('*') doesn't work. Shoes crash!
- Dir.entries('.') or Dir.pwd works.
- But with expert-irb.rb, all works fine.

Umm.... strange... I don't know why...

So, I decided to stop updating Ruby for Shoes so far.
I'll try again with the next release of Ruby 1.9.1.

Regards,
ashbb

Re: [shoes] Attempted building Shoes with Ruby 1.9.1p429

From:
Devyn Cairns
Date:
2010-07-08 @ 01:50
Did you try compiling with the Ruby 1.9.2 beta?

There's a lot of things that are fixed in that release.

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:47 AM, ashbb <ashbbb@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I've tried to build Shoes for Windows with Ruby 1.9.1p429 (released on Jul
> 2nd).
> I could build with no problems. But it couldn't launch. :(
>
> After some debugging, I noticed the following on Shoes:
>
> - Dir['*'] or Dir.glob('*') doesn't work. Shoes crash!
> - Dir.entries('.') or Dir.pwd works.
> - But with expert-irb.rb, all works fine.
>
> Umm.... strange... I don't know why...
>
> So, I decided to stop updating Ruby for Shoes so far.
> I'll try again with the next release of Ruby 1.9.1.
>
> Regards,
> ashbb
>



-- 
   ~devyn

Re: [shoes] Attempted building Shoes with Ruby 1.9.1p429

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2010-07-08 @ 01:54
I thought we decided that 1.9.2 was Right Out?

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Devyn Cairns <devyn.cairns@gmail.com> wrote:

> Did you try compiling with the Ruby 1.9.2 beta?
>
> There's a lot of things that are fixed in that release.
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:47 AM, ashbb <ashbbb@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I've tried to build Shoes for Windows with Ruby 1.9.1p429 (released on Jul
>> 2nd).
>> I could build with no problems. But it couldn't launch. :(
>>
>> After some debugging, I noticed the following on Shoes:
>>
>> - Dir['*'] or Dir.glob('*') doesn't work. Shoes crash!
>> - Dir.entries('.') or Dir.pwd works.
>> - But with expert-irb.rb, all works fine.
>>
>> Umm.... strange... I don't know why...
>>
>> So, I decided to stop updating Ruby for Shoes so far.
>> I'll try again with the next release of Ruby 1.9.1.
>>
>> Regards,
>> ashbb
>>
>
>
>
> --
>    ~devyn
>

Re: [shoes] Attempted building Shoes with Ruby 1.9.1p429

From:
Devyn Cairns
Date:
2010-07-08 @ 02:05
I don't know, did we try it?

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Steve Klabnik <steve@steveklabnik.com>wrote:

> I thought we decided that 1.9.2 was Right Out?
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:50 PM, Devyn Cairns <devyn.cairns@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Did you try compiling with the Ruby 1.9.2 beta?
>>
>> There's a lot of things that are fixed in that release.
>>
>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 5:47 AM, ashbb <ashbbb@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I've tried to build Shoes for Windows with Ruby 1.9.1p429 (released on
>>> Jul 2nd).
>>> I could build with no problems. But it couldn't launch. :(
>>>
>>> After some debugging, I noticed the following on Shoes:
>>>
>>> - Dir['*'] or Dir.glob('*') doesn't work. Shoes crash!
>>> - Dir.entries('.') or Dir.pwd works.
>>> - But with expert-irb.rb, all works fine.
>>>
>>> Umm.... strange... I don't know why...
>>>
>>> So, I decided to stop updating Ruby for Shoes so far.
>>> I'll try again with the next release of Ruby 1.9.1.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> ashbb
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>    ~devyn
>>
>
>


-- 
   ~devyn

Re: [shoes] Attempted building Shoes with Ruby 1.9.1p429

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2010-07-08 @ 02:10
There was this:


http://librelist.com/browser//shoes/2010/6/27/1-8-or-1-9/#484cc3936645317e3b69545dcd2026d7

Re: [shoes] Attempted building Shoes with Ruby 1.9.1p429

From:
Devyn Cairns
Date:
2010-07-08 @ 04:00
I see—well, afaik, 1.9.2 isn't *that* different, just a bunch of bugfixes
and a few features (for example, Method#parameters)

I would say it's worth trying, as it *may* be more compatible than 1.9.1. If
it's not, well, we'll just release Policeman with 1.8.7, and make 1.9 a goal
for the next release.

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Steve Klabnik <steve@steveklabnik.com>wrote:

> There was this:
>
>
> 
http://librelist.com/browser//shoes/2010/6/27/1-8-or-1-9/#484cc3936645317e3b69545dcd2026d7
>
>
>


-- 
   ~devyn

Re: [shoes] Attempted building Shoes with Ruby 1.9.1p429

From:
Cecil Coupe
Date:
2010-07-08 @ 06:51
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 21:00 -0700, Devyn Cairns wrote:
> I see—well, afaik, 1.9.2 isn't *that* different, just a bunch of
> bugfixes and a few features (for example, Method#parameters)
> 
> 
> I would say it's worth trying, as it *may* be more compatible than
> 1.9.1. If it's not, well, we'll just release Policeman with 1.8.7, and
> make 1.9 a goal for the next release.

1.9.2 is (of course) worthy of *testing* by some bleeding edge
developers who desire some thread debugging gdb learning opportunities
with zero/zip/nada English embedding API documentation. As ashbb noted,
1.9.1 isn't all that stable between p3xx and p4yy and the 1.9.1
embedding doc is (at best) some blog posts that have to be found and
wisdom extracted, assimilated and reapplied in the context of what Shoes
does. Do you know Shoes internals that well? I don't. 

ashbb did the right thing. He tried a Ruby 1.9.1 version that is way out
on the edge of any distribution (Linux, Mac or Windows) beyond what any
repository is ever likely to anointed as mainstream and he discovered it
failed spectacularly.

Moving the Shoes Policeman goal posts from 1.8.7 to 1.9.1p378(+/-) has
been hard enough for this small group of developers. It was the
consensus of the developers here that we should attempt it, Because
1.9.1 must be better in some dimension. In spite of all the evidence
that 1.9.0 and 1.9.1 were good ideas with half baked implementations and
zero embedding docs in English. 

I know I'm ranting here, but I feel it's important. Policeman (w/o
video) could have been released in Ruby 1.8.7 as soon as the OSX 10.6
issues were sorted out. And they were fixed (Yay!), using 1.9.1p376. and
that is no small achievement. We fixed some problems that needed solving
in 1.8 vs 1.9. (more remain). 1.9.1 is the stake in the ground we agreed
to. That (consensus) decision might suck for everyone but that's what
consensus means. My preferred goal post was 1.8.7, Devyn's appears be
1.9.Next-and-greatest+1. Different perspectives. Neither are wrong.

But, we agreed, for better or worse, actively or passively/aggressively,
it's going to be 1.9.1 for Policeman. Once that target or goal was
arrived at, we've made great progress for a bunch of part time, rag tag
wanna be knuckle dragging C coders. We've discovered and partially fixed
some latent threading and stdio issues without any documentation,
cleaned up some Windows development issues and some OSX development
issues. Fixed lord knows how many platform dependent graphics edge cases
and build issues. We done good.

_why Day is our deadline. Policeman, Ruby 1.9.1p376 (give or take a
minor patch level). After we meet our first goal, we can high five and
contemplate the next hurdle. 

[rant off]
--Cecil
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Steve Klabnik <steve@steveklabnik.com>
> wrote:
>         There was this:
>         
>         
>         
http://librelist.com/browser//shoes/2010/6/27/1-8-or-1-9/#484cc3936645317e3b69545dcd2026d7
>         
>         
>         
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
>    ~devyn
> 

Re: [shoes] Attempted building Shoes with Ruby 1.9.1p429

From:
ashbb
Date:
2010-07-08 @ 14:16
Fantastic ranting! Thank you for writing, Cecil. :)

> WhyDay is our deadline. Policeman, Ruby 1.9.1p376.
> After we meet our first goal, we can high five and
> contemplate the next hurdle.
I totally agree.
We may not have enough time to make Policeman more stable.
So, please share your findings (bugs or anything).
I'll try my best.

After release Policeman as Shoes 3 on WhyDay, let's try Ruby 1.9.2. ;-)

Cheers,
ashbb

Re: [shoes] Attempted building Shoes with Ruby 1.9.1p429

From:
Devyn Cairns
Date:
2010-07-08 @ 22:30
I read that all *phew* ;] No, but I'm really glad you took the time to write
that. And I agree, stability is important—but 1.9.x has a lot of nice
usability things (that are, indeed, applicable to Shoes)

So, 1.9.1p#{PATCHLEVEL} it is. I can live with that. Let's just do this!

And, even though I'm fairly sure my discussion/point of view is welcome
here, I can't help but feel like a hypocrite as I haven't been able to do
much of the actual work ;]

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Cecil Coupe <ccoupe@cableone.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 21:00 -0700, Devyn Cairns wrote:
> > I see—well, afaik, 1.9.2 isn't *that* different, just a bunch of
> > bugfixes and a few features (for example, Method#parameters)
> >
> >
> > I would say it's worth trying, as it *may* be more compatible than
> > 1.9.1. If it's not, well, we'll just release Policeman with 1.8.7, and
> > make 1.9 a goal for the next release.
>
> 1.9.2 is (of course) worthy of *testing* by some bleeding edge
> developers who desire some thread debugging gdb learning opportunities
> with zero/zip/nada English embedding API documentation. As ashbb noted,
> 1.9.1 isn't all that stable between p3xx and p4yy and the 1.9.1
> embedding doc is (at best) some blog posts that have to be found and
> wisdom extracted, assimilated and reapplied in the context of what Shoes
> does. Do you know Shoes internals that well? I don't.
>
> ashbb did the right thing. He tried a Ruby 1.9.1 version that is way out
> on the edge of any distribution (Linux, Mac or Windows) beyond what any
> repository is ever likely to anointed as mainstream and he discovered it
> failed spectacularly.
>
> Moving the Shoes Policeman goal posts from 1.8.7 to 1.9.1p378(+/-) has
> been hard enough for this small group of developers. It was the
> consensus of the developers here that we should attempt it, Because
> 1.9.1 must be better in some dimension. In spite of all the evidence
> that 1.9.0 and 1.9.1 were good ideas with half baked implementations and
> zero embedding docs in English.
>
> I know I'm ranting here, but I feel it's important. Policeman (w/o
> video) could have been released in Ruby 1.8.7 as soon as the OSX 10.6
> issues were sorted out. And they were fixed (Yay!), using 1.9.1p376. and
> that is no small achievement. We fixed some problems that needed solving
> in 1.8 vs 1.9. (more remain). 1.9.1 is the stake in the ground we agreed
> to. That (consensus) decision might suck for everyone but that's what
> consensus means. My preferred goal post was 1.8.7, Devyn's appears be
> 1.9.Next-and-greatest+1. Different perspectives. Neither are wrong.
>
> But, we agreed, for better or worse, actively or passively/aggressively,
> it's going to be 1.9.1 for Policeman. Once that target or goal was
> arrived at, we've made great progress for a bunch of part time, rag tag
> wanna be knuckle dragging C coders. We've discovered and partially fixed
> some latent threading and stdio issues without any documentation,
> cleaned up some Windows development issues and some OSX development
> issues. Fixed lord knows how many platform dependent graphics edge cases
> and build issues. We done good.
>
> _why Day is our deadline. Policeman, Ruby 1.9.1p376 (give or take a
> minor patch level). After we meet our first goal, we can high five and
> contemplate the next hurdle.
>
> [rant off]
> --Cecil
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 7:10 PM, Steve Klabnik <steve@steveklabnik.com>
> > wrote:
> >         There was this:
> >
> >
> >
> 
http://librelist.com/browser//shoes/2010/6/27/1-8-or-1-9/#484cc3936645317e3b69545dcd2026d7
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >    ~devyn
> >
>
>
>


-- 
   ~devyn

Re: [shoes] Attempted building Shoes with Ruby 1.9.1p429

From:
Steve Klabnik
Date:
2010-07-08 @ 22:49
>
> And, even though I'm fairly sure my discussion/point of view is welcome
> here, I can't help but feel like a hypocrite as I haven't been able to do
> much of the actual work ;]
>

It absolutely is. Don't feel bad about it. We all get busy sometimes.

This summer could have been very different if my girlfriend wasn't in Korea
;)