Rubygems... The "gem list" command show the updated version number
(1.1.3), but "mongrel_rails --version" shows 1.1.2, which was never
isntalled on my system.
-Brian
On Dec 31, 2007 10:35 PM, Luis Lavena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Dec 31, 2007 8:43 PM, Brian Gupta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm confused. Wasn't threading fixed in 1.8.6, negating the need for
fastthread? Why is fastthread still a requirement of Mongrel? Just
curious. :)
___
Mongrel-users mailing list
Mongrel-users@rubyforge.org
http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/mongrel-us
On Jan 1, 2008 10:26 PM, Kevin Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm confused. Wasn't threading fixed in 1.8.6, negating the need for
> fastthread? Why is fastthread still a requirement of Mongrel? Just
> curious. :)
1.8.6 ships with fastthread enabled by default, but some distro
maintainers b
On Jan 1, 2008 4:50 AM, Evan Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I can reproduce. Can you file a ticket?
>
Then that means rubyforge picked the older file before we replaced
with the correct one.
That means Tom Copeland is lying! ;-)
(about how gems the replicated into the mirrors) :-)
Maybe we
Not necessarily...
mongrel/branches/stable_1-1 eweaver$ ack 1.1.2
ext/http11_java/org/jruby/mongrel/Http11.java
218:
req.aset(runtime.newString("SERVER_SOFTWARE"),runtime.newString("Mongrel
1.1.2"));
lib/mongrel/const.rb
68:MONGREL_VERSION="1.1.2".freeze
I think someone (you?) forgot to comm
Thank you.
On Jan 1, 2008 6:05 PM, Luis Lavena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Jan 1, 2008 10:26 PM, Kevin Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm confused. Wasn't threading fixed in 1.8.6, negating the need for
> > fastthread? Why is fastthread still a requirement of Mongrel? Just
> > curio
On Jan 2, 2008 2:34 AM, Evan Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not necessarily...
>
> mongrel/branches/stable_1-1 eweaver$ ack 1.1.2
> ext/http11_java/org/jruby/mongrel/Http11.java
> 218:
> req.aset(runtime.newString("SERVER_SOFTWARE"),runtime.newString("Mongrel
> 1.1.2"));
>
> lib/mongrel/const.
Either way, if someone can figure out why the C/Java extensions
don't/can't refer to the same constant in the first place, that would
be sweet. I haven't had time to investigate that in detail.
Evan
On Jan 1, 2008 11:34 PM, Evan Weaver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not necessarily...
>
> mongrel/b
