Jim Weirich wrote: > Jim Weirich wrote: > > Eric Hodel wrote: > >> What's the status of this? > >> > > > > I've not been able to reproduce the problem. I would recommend going > > ahead with the release. If we find the issue later, then we an get out > > a new version with a fix for this quickly. > > Hang on. I just noticed that Michael has responded to me on my > gmail account with some more information. Let me review that and > I'll either have a patch or a go ahead by this afternoon.
Ok, I've applied some patches to specification.rb that might help it be more resistant to really bad input. Unit tests are beefed up as well. Version 0.9.0.9 is on the betagems web location. Michael, could you give the new version a try under JRuby? You can get it with: gem update --system --source http://onestepback.org/betagems (or whatever is appropriate for JRuby). I'd love to get a quick resolution on this. -- -- Jim Weirich [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://onestepback.org -- In theory, practice and theory are the same. -- In practice, they are different. _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
