Mohammed Morsi wrote, at 12/21/2010 12:18 PM +9:00:
>On 12/20/2010 10:15 PM, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
>>
>>> - rspec 1.3.0 and rspec 2.0.1 have large difference, and it seems that
>>> many packages depends on rspec 1.3.0 (I may be wrong). So maybe we
>>> want
>>> to package rspec
On 12/20/2010 10:15 PM, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
>
>> - rspec 1.3.0 and rspec 2.0.1 have large difference, and it seems that
>> many packages depends on rspec 1.3.0 (I may be wrong). So maybe we want
>> to package rspec 2.0.1 as rubygem-rspec-2 (correct me if I am wrong).
>> Also p
On 12/20/2010 08:37 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 18.12.2010 02:48, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
>> Also the following are new gems which will need to be packaged
>>
>> * arel (1.0.1)
> I have prepared arel package here:
> http://people.redhat.com/vondruch/rubygem-arel.spec
> http://people.redhat.co
On 12/19/2010 04:41 AM, Ohad Levy wrote:
> On Sunday 19 December 2010 11:33:09 Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
>> Hello, Ohad:
>>
>> My recognition is that these incompatibility came because
>> of the incompatibility between actionpack 2.3.5 vs rack 1.1.0
>> (so we patched against actionpack 2.3.5) [2]
>> a
On 12/18/2010 02:12 AM, Mamoru Tasaka wrote:
> Hello, Mohammed:
>
> First of all, thank you for analyzing what to be done for rails 3.0.
No problem. Appreciate your feedback / comments.
> Mohammed Morsi wrote, at 12/18/2010 10:48 AM +9:00:
>> Based on my discussions with the community and v
Dne 18.12.2010 02:48, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
>Based on my discussions with the community and various parties that
> have a vested interest in this, I feel that it is a good idea to move
> the rubygem-rails packages to rails 3.0.x for F15 so that we don't get
> left behind and stay up to date
