On 06/03/2013 10:14 AM, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
Sam, * Sam Ruby <rubys@intertwingly.net> [130603 16:05]:On 06/03/2013 09:49 AM, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:Praveen, Sam, * Praveen A <pravi.a@gmail.com> [130603 15:45]:2013/6/3 Praveen A <pravi.a@gmail.com>:I will update it as I would like you to spend time on things I can't solve myself - rails specific stuff :)Latest version of i18n is 0.6.4. Should we update it to latest version? For now I'll update to 0.6.1 and if it is better to update to latest, I will update it later.activesupport right now requires '= 0.6.1' for i18n. I'm working on updating i18n to 0.6.4, and adding a patch to activesupport to say '>= 0.6.1'.You want to avoid 0.6.2 and 0.6.3: https://github.com/svenfuchs/i18n/issues/192 If you patch activesupport, I'd suggest pulling forward what is in branch 3-2-stable (which is the base for what will eventually be 3.2.14): https://github.com/rails/rails/commit/641a27d47baf4804e89d5a99ee6d843a75d868e6Thanks, I've modified the patch to say >= 0.6.4.
I'll just note in passing that that is subtly different than what Rails is going with. In particular, the Debian version of Rails will pick up i18n 2.0 should it ever become available, and the core-team version of Rails won't pick up i18n 1.0 should IT ever become available. My guess is both outcomes are suboptimal. :-)
Next thing on my list is rack, which also needs a new version.Do you have an opinion on rack as well? Currently, actionpack 3.2 wants ~> 1.4.5, but actionpack 4.0 wants ~> 1.5.2.
My honest opinion? Drop work on actionpack 3.2 (and Rails 3.2, and Ruby 1.8.7). :-)
But given that sid has ruby1.8 and ruby1.9.1, and you appear to be doing the early work towards rails 4.0 (excellent!), why not make both ruby-rack1.5 and ruby-rack1.6 available?
It looks like rack 1.5 has some breaking API changes, but I haven't found any evidence yet that they affect Rails. Example:
https://github.com/nov/rack-oauth2/commit/752520e2a2ba3cd542f0582a38d1667e863c381a
- Sam RubyC.
- Sam Ruby