On 01/14/2011 11:38 AM, Michael Stahnke wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
>> On 01/14/2011 04:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> Dne 14.1.2011 09:50, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
On 01/14/2011 02:58 AM, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
> On 01/12/2011 11:29 AM, V
On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 8:54 AM, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
> On 01/14/2011 04:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Dne 14.1.2011 09:50, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
>>> On 01/14/2011 02:58 AM, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
On 01/12/2011 11:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Are we really going to replace Rai
On 01/14/2011 04:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Dne 14.1.2011 09:50, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
>> On 01/14/2011 02:58 AM, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
>>> On 01/12/2011 11:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Are we really going to replace Rails 2.x with Rails 3.0.x or should they
live side by side
Dne 14.1.2011 09:50, Mohammed Morsi napsal(a):
>On 01/14/2011 02:58 AM, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
>> On 01/12/2011 11:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>> Are we really going to replace Rails 2.x with Rails 3.0.x or should they
>>> live side by side? Your specs shows the later and I am also fan of the
On 01/14/2011 02:58 AM, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
>On 01/12/2011 11:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>> Are we really going to replace Rails 2.x with Rails 3.0.x or should they
>> live side by side? Your specs shows the later and I am also fan of the
>> later. However, I am not sure everybody else will
On 01/12/2011 11:29 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
> Are we really going to replace Rails 2.x with Rails 3.0.x or should they
> live side by side? Your specs shows the later and I am also fan of the
> later. However, I am not sure everybody else will be happy with this
> step. Was it discussed before? So
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 13:11 -0500, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
> I created a public google docs spreadsheet to better visualize and track
> these changes, as well as any more to update the various gem rpms in
> Fedora to be compatible w/ the the Rails 3 ones.
>
> https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?k
Are we really going to replace Rails 2.x with Rails 3.0.x or should they
live side by side? Your specs shows the later and I am also fan of the
later. However, I am not sure everybody else will be happy with this
step. Was it discussed before? Sorry, I am not following Fedora Rails
development
Hello, Mommamed and all:
> Please take a look at these rpms if you can, the more eyes we get on
> them the better. Unless I receive any negative feedback or if I don't
> get any at all, I'll update these rpms in rawhide by the end of the week
> (the latest I want to get this all done is by the Fed
On 01/11/2011 01:11 PM, Mohammed Morsi wrote:
>
>
> Actionpack:
> http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-activerecord.spec
Sorry this link should be
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-actionpack-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
>
>
>
> Also rubygem-minitext, owned by mkent needs to be updated
> http
The Rails 3.0.3 RPMs for Fedora are just about ready to go. Please
look at and review the Specs and SRPMs below:
Rails:
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails-3.0.3-1.fc14.src.rpm
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-rails.spec
Activesupport:
http://mo.morsi.org/files/rpms/rubygem-acti
11 matches
Mail list logo