[ANN] RedCloth 2.0.2 -- A Textile Humane Web Text Generator

For your immediate perusal and swift renouncement:

RedCloth 2.0.2. To upgrade: raa-install -i redcloth

RedCloth is a module for using Textile in Ruby. Textile is a text
format. A very simple text format. Another stab at making readable
text that can be converted to HTML.

I’m using Textile to write the (Poignant) Guide. It’s been a real
angel. (But it didn’t have to die to become one – it’s that good.) If
you like the formatting of the Guide, I’d check out Textile. Smart
quotes, cooperative with css.

Many have written about 2.0.1 saying that it couldn’t handle Dean
Allen’s test input. [1] Sure enough. Well, give this a whirl, should
be fully sutured.

There are two people as well, Bret Pettichord and David Heinemeier
Hansson, who have been instrumental in filing bugs and testing this
particular fabric. So, thank you Inspectors 9 and 73.

_why

[1] http://textism.com/tools/textile/index.html?sample=2

why the lucky stiff wrote:

For your immediate perusal and swift renouncement:

RedCloth 2.0.2. To upgrade: raa-install -i redcloth

raa-install threw up the following for me. don’t think it has got
anything to do with the fabric under question.

—8<—
Downloading project data
http://narf-lib.sourceforge.net/raa/raa-xml-compacted.xml
/users18/seraph//lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.9/raainstall/raaopen.rb:11:in
open': uninitialized constant RAAInstall::URI (NameError) from /users18/seraph//lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.9/raainstall/raaopen.rb:213:in open’
from
/users18/seraph//lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.9/raainstall.rb:47:in get_data' from /users18/seraph//lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.9/raainstall.rb:54:in all’
from
/users18/seraph//lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.9/raainstall.rb:138:in install' from /users18/seraph/bin/raa-install:79:in install’
from /users18/seraph/bin/raa-install:129:in call' from /users18/seraph/bin/raa-install:129 from /users18/seraph/bin/raa-install:116:in each’
from /users18/seraph//lib/ruby/1.9/getoptlong.rb:457:in loop' from /users18/seraph//lib/ruby/1.9/getoptlong.rb:457:in each’
from /users18/seraph/bin/raa-install:116

—>8—
Changing the “RAAInstall::URI” in the offending line(raainstall.rb, line
11) to just “URI” makes the pain go away.

What did I do wrong in the first place?

Note:
bash-2.05a$ ruby -v
ruby 1.9.0 (2004-03-10) [sparc-solaris2.8]

TIA,
Shajith

Shajith wrote:

raa-install threw up the following for me. don’t think it has got
anything to do with the fabric under question.

—8<—
Downloading project data
http://narf-lib.sourceforge.net/raa/raa-xml-compacted.xml
/users18/seraph//lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.9/raainstall/raaopen.rb:11:in
`open’: uninitialized constant RAAInstall::URI (NameError)

yes, this is an incompatibility between 1.8 and raa-install. try the
RUBY_1_8_SKIM_MILK branch.

cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.sf.net:/cvsroot/narf-lib export -D now
-r RUBY_1_8_SKIM_MILK -d raa-install-skim raa-install

this will download a current version into an `raa-install-skim’
directory. let me know.

_why

why the lucky stiff wrote:

cvs -d:pserver:anonymous@cvs.sf.net:/cvsroot/narf-lib export -D now
-r RUBY_1_8_SKIM_MILK -d raa-install-skim raa-install

this will download a current version into an `raa-install-skim’
directory. let me know.

It works without a hitch now. Will check out the cloth in detail, thank
you much.

If I do “raa-install -i raainstall”, though, things revert to chaos.
That version of raa-install, I also find, gets me redcloth 2.0 when I do
“raa-install -i redcloth”

Q: Is raa-install part of the ruby distribution? I for one, find it
very nifty.

Sticking to skimmed milk, for now.

_why

Shajith

Shajith wrote:

Q: Is raa-install part of the ruby distribution? I for one, find it
very nifty.

Sticking to skimmed milk, for now.

i think a question like that really depends on the likes of other
competitive software like rubygems. and rubygems is a visionary world
beyond raa-install. should rubygems come to fruition, raa-install will
melt away as the tiniest candle on the firey tongue of a skeleton
avalanche. so, despite a great amount of support over the last year,
raa-install likely won’t be seen in the main distribution.

unless perhaps we could simply include the skim milk version (read:
trimmed down for 1.8) and leverage rubygems or rpkg if they take hold.
i dunno. not my decision. and i don’t wield a battleaxe big enough to
wage that war.

mine is a keychain battleaxe and i use it to execute judgement on
stubborn shoelaces.

_why

why the lucky stiff ruby-talk@whytheluckystiff.net wrote in message news:40516BEE.9050505@whytheluckystiff.net

Shajith wrote:

Q: Is raa-install part of the ruby distribution? I for one, find it
very nifty.

Sticking to skimmed milk, for now.

i think a question like that really depends on the likes of other
competitive software like rubygems. and rubygems is a visionary world
beyond raa-install. should rubygems come to fruition, raa-install will
melt away as the tiniest candle on the firey tongue of a skeleton
avalanche. so, despite a great amount of support over the last year,
raa-install likely won’t be seen in the main distribution.

Isn’t the advantage of raa-install that it works with the current RAA?
Wouldn’t Rubygems require a whole new infrastructure? (or at least
the creation of a gem file for each package in the RAA)

I agree that longterm RubyGems seems like the better way to go from a
technical standpoint, but these things tend to be evolutionary rather
than revolutionary. If raa-install works well with the current system
it has a survival advantage over RubyGems. If I’m understanding
correctly, RubyGems requires every package owner to repackage their
packages as Gems - well, how many people are going to do that in a
timely fashion? (If I’m misunderstanding how RubyGems works then
please correct me)

RubyGems sounds great, but I’m afraid it requires a revolution and I
don’t even see anyone out trying to stir up that revolution at this
point. Where are the RubyGem advocates?

Perhaps we could somehow merge the two approaches to build a bridge
between the current RAA and some future Gem-based RAA? An raa-install
that can handle Gems or a RubyGems that can also work with the
current RAA? This sort of mutant just might have a chance at
survival.

unless perhaps we could simply include the skim milk version (read:
trimmed down for 1.8) and leverage rubygems or rpkg if they take hold.
i dunno. not my decision. and i don’t wield a battleaxe big enough to
wage that war.

What’s the ‘skim milk’ version of raa-install?

mine is a keychain battleaxe and i use it to execute judgement on
stubborn shoelaces.

And my light-saber is a flashlight-saber used to light the way as I
trick-or-treat on Halloween. The ‘D’ cells tend to run down by the
end of the evening and, like Cinderella, I need to be home before they
die.

Phil

Phil Tomson wrote:

Isn’t the advantage of raa-install that it works with the current RAA?
Wouldn’t Rubygems require a whole new infrastructure? (or at least
the creation of a gem file for each package in the RAA)

I agree that longterm RubyGems seems like the better way to go from a
technical standpoint, but these things tend to be evolutionary rather
than revolutionary. If raa-install works well with the current system
it has a survival advantage over RubyGems. If I’m understanding
correctly, RubyGems requires every package owner to repackage their
packages as Gems - well, how many people are going to do that in a
timely fashion? (If I’m misunderstanding how RubyGems works then
please correct me)

RubyGems sounds great, but I’m afraid it requires a revolution and I
don’t even see anyone out trying to stir up that revolution at this
point. Where are the RubyGem advocates?

Part of the problem with RubyGems adoption may be that there has yet to
be an actual release:

http://rubyforge.org/project/showfiles.php?group_id=126

Yes, you can fetch the files from the rubyforge CVS, but the impression
may be that the code is still quite alpha; time invested in using
RubyGems may be wasted (or need be repeated) as the code base is unstable.

James

why the lucky stiff ruby-talk@whytheluckystiff.net wrote in message news:40516BEE.9050505@whytheluckystiff.net

> Shajith wrote:

> >

> > Q: Is raa-install part of the ruby distribution? I for one, find it

> > very nifty.

> >

> > Sticking to skimmed milk, for now.

> >

>

> i think a question like that really depends on the likes of other

> competitive software like rubygems. and rubygems is a visionary world

> beyond raa-install. should rubygems come to fruition, raa-install will

> melt away as the tiniest candle on the firey tongue of a skeleton

> avalanche. so, despite a great amount of support over the last year,

> raa-install likely won’t be seen in the main distribution.

···

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, Phil Tomson wrote:

Isn’t the advantage of raa-install that it works with the current RAA?

Wouldn’t Rubygems require a whole new infrastructure? (or at least

the creation of a gem file for each package in the RAA)

Right. Rich and I have been talking about using raa-install to
mass-create Gems for current RAA packages that are raa-installable.

RubyGems sounds great, but I’m afraid it requires a revolution and I

don’t even see anyone out trying to stir up that revolution at this

point. Where are the RubyGem advocates?

Watch this space. We’re planning a release as soon as this weekend.

Perhaps we could somehow merge the two approaches to build a bridge

between the current RAA and some future Gem-based RAA? An raa-install

that can handle Gems or a RubyGems that can also work with the

current RAA? This sort of mutant just might have a chance at

survival.

I believe the conversion approach will do a lot for the short term. Long
term, it’s actually very easy to produce a gem file (slightly more
involved than creating a tar file).

Why, how would you like to get involved in an raa-install -> rubygems
convertor?

Chad

Phil Tomson wrote:

>

> Isn’t the advantage of raa-install that it works with the current RAA?

> Wouldn’t Rubygems require a whole new infrastructure? (or at least

> the creation of a gem file for each package in the RAA)

>

> I agree that longterm RubyGems seems like the better way to go from a

> technical standpoint, but these things tend to be evolutionary rather

> than revolutionary. If raa-install works well with the current system

> it has a survival advantage over RubyGems. If I’m understanding

> correctly, RubyGems requires every package owner to repackage their

> packages as Gems - well, how many people are going to do that in a

> timely fashion? (If I’m misunderstanding how RubyGems works then

> please correct me)

>

> RubyGems sounds great, but I’m afraid it requires a revolution and I

> don’t even see anyone out trying to stir up that revolution at this

> point. Where are the RubyGem advocates?

···

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, James Britt wrote:

Part of the problem with RubyGems adoption may be that there has yet to

be an actual release:

http://rubyforge.org/project/showfiles.php?group_id=126

Yes, you can fetch the files from the rubyforge CVS, but the impression

may be that the code is still quite alpha; time invested in using

RubyGems may be wasted (or need be repeated) as the code base is unstable.

You’re right, James. Without a release, it’s had to justify spending
time and energy on gem-ifying your code. We’re going to correct that.

Chad

Chad Fowler wrote:

Part of the problem with RubyGems adoption may be that there has yet to

be an actual release:

http://rubyforge.org/project/showfiles.php?group_id=126

Yes, you can fetch the files from the rubyforge CVS, but the impression

may be that the code is still quite alpha; time invested in using

RubyGems may be wasted (or need be repeated) as the code base is unstable.

You’re right, James. Without a release, it’s had to justify spending
time and energy on gem-ifying your code. We’re going to correct that.

Excellent news!

James

···

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, James Britt wrote:

Chad