Hi Rubyists,
The release of Ruby 3.3 is coming close and to be ready for rebuild after Christmas, I have submitted the Ruby 3.3 change proposal [1]. It is already in `ChangeReadyForWrangler` state, since I don't expect any controversy (it is mostly copy paste of Ruby 3.2 change [2]). But anyway, please review and let me know if you have any concerns (or feel free to address them in the proposal).
Also, I wonder if somebody wants to join me as an owner? Mamoru? You have been very helpful with this effort.
Vít
Vít Ondruch wrote on 2023/11/01 19:17:
Hi Rubyists,
The release of Ruby 3.3 is coming close and to be ready for rebuild after Christmas, I have submitted the Ruby 3.3 change proposal [1]. It is already in `ChangeReadyForWrangler` state, since I don't expect any controversy (it is mostly copy paste of Ruby 3.2 change [2]). But anyway, please review and let me know if you have any concerns (or feel free to address them in the proposal).
Also, I wonder if somebody wants to join me as an owner? Mamoru? You have been very helpful with this effort.
Thanks for inviting me! I am happy to become changeset co-owner with you. As before, I will do my best effort for Ruby 3.3 on Fedora.
Regards, Mamoru
Vít
Dne 01. 11. 23 v 12:28 Mamoru TASAKA napsal(a):
Vít Ondruch wrote on 2023/11/01 19:17:
Hi Rubyists,
The release of Ruby 3.3 is coming close and to be ready for rebuild after Christmas, I have submitted the Ruby 3.3 change proposal [1]. It is already in `ChangeReadyForWrangler` state, since I don't expect any controversy (it is mostly copy paste of Ruby 3.2 change [2]). But anyway, please review and let me know if you have any concerns (or feel free to address them in the proposal).
Also, I wonder if somebody wants to join me as an owner? Mamoru? You have been very helpful with this effort.
Thanks for inviting me! I am happy to become changeset co-owner with you.
Thx! Feel free to adjust if I got something wrong:
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Changes/Ruby_3.3&diff=693729...
As before, I will do my best effort for Ruby 3.3 on Fedora.
Appreciate that.
Vít
Regards, Mamoru
Vít
ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.o... Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
On 11/1/23 11:17, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi Rubyists,
The release of Ruby 3.3 is coming close and to be ready for rebuild after Christmas, I have submitted the Ruby 3.3 change proposal [1]. It is already in `ChangeReadyForWrangler` state, since I don't expect any controversy (it is mostly copy paste of Ruby 3.2 change [2]). But anyway, please review and let me know if you have any concerns (or feel free to address them in the proposal).
I don't see mentions of the new macro(s). I think we'd want them to also gain visibility via the Change.
And this reminded me that once this lands, the documentation for Ruby packaging guidelines [3] will also deserve an update for this packaging macro extensions.
The previous paragraph IMO means that there is a scope needed for guidelines update (only extension though, so nothing serious).
Jarek
Also, I wonder if somebody wants to join me as an owner? Mamoru? You have been very helpful with this effort.
Vít
[3] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ruby/
Dne 02. 11. 23 v 11:15 jprokop@redhat.com napsal(a):
On 11/1/23 11:17, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Hi Rubyists,
The release of Ruby 3.3 is coming close and to be ready for rebuild after Christmas, I have submitted the Ruby 3.3 change proposal [1]. It is already in `ChangeReadyForWrangler` state, since I don't expect any controversy (it is mostly copy paste of Ruby 3.2 change [2]). But anyway, please review and let me know if you have any concerns (or feel free to address them in the proposal).
I don't see mentions of the new macro(s). I think we'd want them to also gain visibility via the Change.
And this reminded me that once this lands, the documentation for Ruby packaging guidelines [3] will also deserve an update for this packaging macro extensions.
The previous paragraph IMO means that there is a scope needed for guidelines update (only extension though, so nothing serious).
I am not convinced yet that the changes are substantial enough to be worth of mentioning in the change proposal or in the guidelines. So far there is only new `%gem_name_version` and it is more utility for the other `%gem_*` macros then anything else.
However, the time for guidelines might yet to come if `gem2rpm` adopts usage of these changes. PR could actually be convincing argument ;)
I'll try to keep this in mind and don't hesitate to remind me this topic.
Vít
Jarek
Also, I wonder if somebody wants to join me as an owner? Mamoru? You have been very helpful with this effort.
Vít
[3] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Ruby/ _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.o... Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org