[#59445] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9335][Open] dynamic rescue regression in Ruby 2.1 — "fdr (Daniel Farina)" <daniel@...>
[#59462] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9342][Open] [PATCH] SizedQueue#clear does not notify waiting threads in Ruby 1.9.3 — "jsc (Justin Collins)" <redmine@...>
[#59466] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9343][Open] [PATCH] SizedQueue#max= wakes up waiters properly — "normalperson (Eric Wong)" <normalperson@...>
Issue #9343 has been updated by Eric Wong.
[#59498] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9352][Open] [BUG] rb_sys_fail_str(connect(2) for [fe80::1%lo0]:3000) - errno == 0 — "kain (Claudio Poli)" <claudio@...>
[#59516] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9356][Open] TCPSocket.new does not seem to handle INTR — "charliesome (Charlie Somerville)" <charliesome@...>
Issue #9356 has been updated by Shugo Maeda.
[#59517] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9357][Open] TracePoint's c_return traces return from call to 'trace' — "andhapp (Anuj Dutta)" <anuj@...>
[#59538] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9362][Assigned] Minimize cache misshit to gain optimal speed — "shyouhei (Shyouhei Urabe)" <shyouhei@...>
Hi, I noticed a trivial typo in array.c, and it fails building struct.c
Eric Wong <[email protected]> wrote:
Btw, I just pushed a few trivial fixes up (a few more failures below):
OK, last update of the night :o I think everything is good on 32-bit...
Eric Wong <[email protected]> wrote:
Btw, I started working on cachelined-time branch on git://80x24.org/ruby
Eric Wong <[email protected]> wrote:
On 01/06/2014 12:02 PM, Eric Wong wrote:
Urabe Shyouhei <[email protected]> wrote:
Intersting challenge.
On 01/06/2014 04:52 PM, SASADA Koichi wrote:
On 01/06/2014 06:11 PM, Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
(2014/01/06 23:10), Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
On 01/07/2014 07:36 AM, SASADA Koichi wrote:
[#59564] [ruby-trunk - Bug #9365][Open] Sporadic TypeError (wrong argument type Thread (expected VM/thread)) from IO#close (via Net:HTTP) — "ggiesemann (Geoffrey Giesemann)" <geoffwa@...>
Issue #9365 has been updated by Geoffrey Giesemann.
[#59728] Ruby 2.1.0 in Production: known bugs and patches — Aman Gupta <[email protected]>
Last week, we upgraded the github.com rails app to ruby 2.1.0 in production.
Hello Aman,
[#59770] bug report did not propagate to ruby-core — Mean Login <meanlogin@...>
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/9416
[#59791] About unmarshallable DRb objects life-time — Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <rr.rosas@...>
A while ago I created a proof-of-concept that I intended to use in my
On 15 Jan 2014, at 11:58, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <[email protected]> =
Em 15-01-2014 19:42, Eric Hodel escreveu:
On 16 Jan 2014, at 02:15, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <[email protected]> =
Em 16-01-2014 19:43, Eric Hodel escreveu:
On 17 Jan 2014, at 04:22, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <[email protected]> =
Em 17-01-2014 19:53, Eric Hodel escreveu:
On 18 Jan 2014, at 15:12, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <[email protected]> =
Em 20-01-2014 21:51, Eric Hodel escreveu:
On 21 Jan 2014, at 02:01, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <[email protected]> =
Em 21-01-2014 19:36, Eric Hodel escreveu:
[#59807] [ruby-trunk - misc #9421] [Open] [PATCH] doc/contributing.rdoc: allow/encourage other git hosts — normalperson@...
Issue #9421 has been reported by Eric Wong.
[#59882] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9428] [Rejected] Inline argument expressions and re-assignment — matz@...
Issue #9428 has been updated by Yukihiro Matsumoto.
On 2014/01/20 11:32, [email protected] wrote:
[#59909] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9425] [PATCH] st: use power-of-two sizes to avoid slow modulo ops — shyouhei@...
Issue #9425 has been updated by Shyouhei Urabe.
[email protected] wrote:
[#60229] [ruby-trunk - Feature #9427] [Feedback] [PATCH] io.c: remove socket check for sendfile — akr@...
Issue #9427 has been updated by Akira Tanaka.
[#60377] Re: [ruby-cvs:51920] nobu:r44775 (trunk): socket.c: suppress warnings — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
[email protected] wrote:
[ruby-core:60017] Re: [ruby-trunk - Bug #9424] ruby 1.9 & 2.x has insecure SSL/TLS client defaults
[email protected] wrote: > > Rolling your own defaults is dangerous: Even skilled developers like the > Debian developers can get it wrong sometimes, with disastrous consequences. The Debian blunder has been referenced twice in this discussion, but I think the comparison is not apt. The Debian maintainer _removed lines of code_ from the OpenSSL PRNG implementation. [1] This is hardly in the same category as tightening the defaults to exclude specific ciphers or protocol features already known to be weak or exploitable. > It hurts even more that in such cases everyone will start pointing fingers, > asking: "Why didn't you stick to the library defaults???" As opposed to asking: "Why didn't you remove known weak ciphers and exploitable protocol features from the defaults when you were warned about them???" > I would prefer a whitelisting approach instead of blacklisting as in the > patch that was proposed. Blacklisting is never airtight, as it doesn't protect > us from future shitty algorithms creeping in. I wonder. In the blacklisting case, we're not required to make guesses about the future. We're merely switching off already-known weak or exploitable features. Whitelisting goes a step further, gambling that what we know today about the subset of defaults considered superior will continue to hold true down the road. It's not clear to me that's better than the more conservative step of simply blacklisting specific defaults already known to be problematic. Regards, Bill [1] The details are perhaps interesting: http://research.swtch.com/openssl