From lists at sourceillustrated.com Mon Jan 30 11:27:18 2006 From: lists at sourceillustrated.com (John Wells) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:27:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Rubygems-developers] How to submit patches? Message-ID: <34577.66.192.236.118.1138638438.squirrel@devsea.com> Guys, I've modified gem_commands.rb and doc_manager.rb to allow incorporation of RDoc into ri easily. I'd like to submit this code as a patch, but cannot login to cvs anonymously: Logging in to :pserver:anonymous at rubyforge.org:2401/var/cvs/rubygems CVS password: cvs login: authorization failed: server rubyforge.org rejected access to /var/cvs/rubygems for user anonymous Can anyone tell me what I should do? Also, if there are any particulars required for submitting patches, please let me know. Thanks! John From jim.weirich at gmail.com Mon Jan 30 11:40:53 2006 From: jim.weirich at gmail.com (Jim Weirich) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 11:40:53 -0500 Subject: [Rubygems-developers] How to submit patches? In-Reply-To: <34577.66.192.236.118.1138638438.squirrel@devsea.com> References: <34577.66.192.236.118.1138638438.squirrel@devsea.com> Message-ID: On 1/30/06, John Wells wrote: > Guys, > > I've modified gem_commands.rb and doc_manager.rb to allow incorporation of > RDoc into ri easily. I'd like to submit this code as a patch, but cannot > login to cvs anonymously: > > Logging in to :pserver:anonymous at rubyforge.org:2401/var/cvs/rubygems > CVS password: > cvs login: authorization failed: server rubyforge.org rejected access to > /var/cvs/rubygems for user anonymous Funny ... I just tried it and it worked for me. But nevertheless, an anonymous login wouldn't have allowed you to submit changes anyways. But you should be able to get the current CVS tree in that manner. > Can anyone tell me what I should do? Also, if there are any particulars > required for submitting patches, please let me know. Once you can patch against the current source base, just send the patches to this list. Somebody will review the patch and apply it if it passes general muster. We strongly recommend submitting unit test cases and functional test cases along with any submission. -- -- -- Jim Weirich jim at weirichhouse.org http://onestepback.org ----------------------------------------------------------------- "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas) From lists at sourceillustrated.com Mon Jan 30 13:17:20 2006 From: lists at sourceillustrated.com (John Wells) Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:17:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Rubygems-developers] How to submit patches? In-Reply-To: References: <34577.66.192.236.118.1138638438.squirrel@devsea.com> Message-ID: <58736.66.192.236.118.1138645040.squirrel@devsea.com> Jim Weirich said: > Funny ... I just tried it and it worked for me. But nevertheless, an > anonymous login wouldn't have allowed you to submit changes anyways. > But you should be able to get the current CVS tree in that manner. Absolutely. I didn't seek to submit directly to the tree...only to actually get the current tree so I could generate a patch based on it. Anyway...it was stupid mistake...I had simply glanced at the instructions and was using the password "anonymous" instead of leaving it blank. ;) > Once you can patch against the current source base, just send the > patches to this list. Somebody will review the patch and apply it if > it passes general muster. We strongly recommend submitting unit test > cases and functional test cases along with any submission. Ok...will do. Thanks. John From lists at sourceillustrated.com Tue Jan 31 11:20:26 2006 From: lists at sourceillustrated.com (John Wells) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 11:20:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Rubygems-developers] PATCH: option to incorporate RDoc into ri Message-ID: <34012.66.192.236.118.1138724426.squirrel@devsea.com> Guys, Attached, please find a proposed patch to add an --ri flag to the rdoc command to incorporate the rdoc into the system ri directory. Note, the patch doesn't provide this option on gem install, only on actually running the rdoc command. Also, you must do this step separately (i.e., running --ri doesn't include generation of the HTML), as doing both generates a very strange error, and I suspect the existing commented out code indicates someone else had run across this. Also note I don't offer the capability of removing the ri info on uninstall, only a note stating that you should do it. I spent a lot of time going down the path to do this and got it close to working, but the problem is that the rdoc code doesn't distinguish (afaict) between classes that are system classes or shared between other classes...it simply updates or replaces them. So, for example, if I generate the ri for the Ferret gem, when I go to remove it I'm presented with three top level classes: Ferret, String and Thread. Ferret is obviously the one I'd like to remove, but I really *don't* want to remove String and Thread. If I'm mistaken here, please let me know and I'll research further. I'm very open to suggestions or comments. I find this a very useful addition, as it is very helpful to have gem docs available at your fingertips, and often gem_server is a bit too much for my needs. Also, as I started to think about how one might test this I quickly found I possessed more questions than answers. I suppose I can check for existence for each of the classes by reimplementing Generators::RIGenerator#generate to get a list of the top level classes found for a gem and then make sure a directory exists for each in the system ri directory, but not sure this is sufficient. Additionally, this would suppose there were some sort of prexisting gem on every system that I could generate ri for, test for existence, and then delete. Anyway, I'm open to thoughts on this. I want to do it the right way and would value your opinions. Thanks! John -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: add_option_for_ri.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 4004 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/attachments/20060131/eae2cc9e/add_option_for_ri-0001.bin From lists at sourceillustrated.com Tue Jan 31 12:22:08 2006 From: lists at sourceillustrated.com (John Wells) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:22:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Rubygems-developers] PATCH: option to incorporate RDoc into ri In-Reply-To: <34012.66.192.236.118.1138724426.squirrel@devsea.com> References: <34012.66.192.236.118.1138724426.squirrel@devsea.com> Message-ID: <36705.66.192.236.118.1138728128.squirrel@devsea.com> Guys, Sorry. An updated patch is included to remove a mistype in the uninstall message in the original. Thanks, John -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: add_option_for_ri.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 3996 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://rubyforge.org/pipermail/rubygems-developers/attachments/20060131/9ec5df29/add_option_for_ri.bin