Ran across this article on digg.com about the release of Rails 1.1:
d-respond_to-integration-tests-and-500-other-things
In case anyone might have missed it.
-Dave
Your link does not work I think, I could be wrong though ..??
David Ishmael wrote:
Ran across this article on digg.com about the release of Rails 1.1:
http://weblog.rubyonrails.com/articles/2006/03/28/rails-1-1-rjs-active-recor
d-respond_to-integration-tests-and-500-other-things
In case anyone might have missed it.
It is still not being installed by gem ???
john
David Ishmael wrote:
Ran across this article on digg.com about the release of Rails 1.1:
There. Now the URL should work most places. (Added <>)
-f
···
In case anyone might have missed it.
-Dave
Yeah, the link got cropped because the URL is so long. Head over to
http://www.rubyonrails.org and look for a link in the red bar that reads,
"New Release: Rails 1.1".
-Dave
···
-----Original Message-----
From: julian [mailto:jkbowler@tiscali.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:39 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: Rails 1.1 Released
Your link does not work I think, I could be wrong though ..??
It is still not being installed by gem ???
john
What do you mean? I think gem installs rails:
Upgrading from 1.0
So with such a massive update, upgrading is going to be hell, right? Wrong!
We've gone to painstaking lengths to ensure that upgrading from 1.0 will be
as easy as pie. Here goes the steps:
Update to Rails 1.1:
gem install rails --include-dependencies
Update JavaScripts for RJS:
rake rails:update
That's pretty much it! If you're seeing any nastiness after upgrading, it's
most likely due to a plugin that's incompatible with 1.1. See if the author
hasn't updated it and otherwise force him to do so.
If you're on Ruby 1.8.2 with Windows, though, you'll want to upgrade to the
1.8.4 (or the script/console will fail). And even if you're on another
platform, it's a good idea to upgrade to Ruby 1.8.4. We still support 1.8.2,
but might not in the next major release. So may as well get the upgrading
with over with now.
DOH, that still doesn't work right (wish they'd update their main site).
The link may have been split in the original thread. If you see two lines,
cut and paste both lines as a single line in your browser address bar. You
can also try this:
-Dave
···
-----Original Message-----
From: David Ishmael [mailto:dishmael@windwardcg.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:45 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: Rails 1.1 Released
Yeah, the link got cropped because the URL is so long. Head over to
http://www.rubyonrails.org and look for a link in the red bar that reads,
"New Release: Rails 1.1".
-Dave
-----Original Message-----
From: julian [mailto:jkbowler@tiscali.co.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:39 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: Rails 1.1 Released
Your link does not work I think, I could be wrong though ..??
I get a hang at ...
info@libros:~/bin> gem install rails --include-dependencies
Attempting local installation of 'rails'
Local gem file not found: rails*.gem
Attempting remote installation of 'rails'
Updating Gem source index for: http://gems.rubyforge.org
never get past that!!!
That's what I mean
David Ishmael wrote:
···
It is still not being installed by gem ???
john
What do you mean? I think gem installs rails:
Upgrading from 1.0
So with such a massive update, upgrading is going to be hell, right?
Wrong! We've gone to painstaking lengths to ensure that upgrading from 1.0
will be as easy as pie. Here goes the steps:Update to Rails 1.1:
gem install rails --include-dependencies
Update JavaScripts for RJS:
rake rails:update
That's pretty much it! If you're seeing any nastiness after upgrading,
it's most likely due to a plugin that's incompatible with 1.1. See if the
author hasn't updated it and otherwise force him to do so.
John N. Alegre wrote:
I get a hang at ...
info@libros:~/bin> gem install rails --include-dependencies
Attempting local installation of 'rails'
Local gem file not found: rails*.gem
Attempting remote installation of 'rails'
Updating Gem source index for: http://gems.rubyforge.orgnever get past that!!!
That's what I mean
mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxiua cupla
I guess a lot of people are hitting rubyforge. This did work after waiting
10 min.
Sorry for the confusion.
john
Whew, I was running out of ideas. 
Glad it's working now.
-Dave
···
-----Original Message-----
From: John N. Alegre [mailto:info@johnalegre.net]
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 4:19 PM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: Rails 1.1 Released -SOLVED
John N. Alegre wrote:
I get a hang at ...
info@libros:~/bin> gem install rails --include-dependencies
Attempting local installation of 'rails'
Local gem file not found: rails*.gem
Attempting remote installation of 'rails'
Updating Gem source index for: http://gems.rubyforge.orgnever get past that!!!
That's what I mean
mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxiua cupla
I guess a lot of people are hitting rubyforge. This did work after waiting
10 min.
Sorry for the confusion.
john
Still seems to be grinding though. I wonder if gems could also be distributed through bit-torrent, or something?
···
On 28 Mar 2006, at 22:40, David Ishmael wrote:
Whew, I was running out of ideas.
What sort of bandwidth is needed? Perhaps I can help set up a mirror service?
Cheers,
Pete
Benjohn Barnes wrote:
···
On 28 Mar 2006, at 22:40, David Ishmael wrote:
Whew, I was running out of ideas.
Still seems to be grinding though. I wonder if gems could also be distributed through bit-torrent, or something?
There are better solutions already on the table. The problem is that the gem index is really big. It doesn't need to be as big as it is.
···
On Mar 28, 2006, at 3:22 PM, Benjohn Barnes wrote:
On 28 Mar 2006, at 22:40, David Ishmael wrote:
Whew, I was running out of ideas.
Still seems to be grinding though. I wonder if gems could also be distributed through bit-torrent, or something?
--
Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
This implementation is HODEL-HASH-9600 compliant
Yup, all gems and large files are served by mirrors:
The slowdown now is due to the size of the Gem index (and RubyForge's
limited bandwidth). The Gem guys have a fix in the pipeline for the
former and I think the latter is being worked on as well...
Yours,
Tom
···
On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 08:22 +0900, Benjohn Barnes wrote:
On 28 Mar 2006, at 22:40, David Ishmael wrote:
> Whew, I was running out of ideas.
Still seems to be grinding though. I wonder if gems could also be
distributed through bit-torrent, or something?
It's odd - a lot of the time seems to be taken up by updating the gem info from the remote site. I think this took longer than actually getting the gems down. 
The total time was not excessive though.
···
On 29 Mar 2006, at 00:26, Peter Palmer wrote:
What sort of bandwidth is needed? Perhaps I can help set up a mirror service?
} On Mar 28, 2006, at 3:22 PM, Benjohn Barnes wrote:
}
} >On 28 Mar 2006, at 22:40, David Ishmael wrote:
} >
} >>Whew, I was running out of ideas. 
Glad it's working now.
} >
} >Still seems to be grinding though. I wonder if gems could also be
} >distributed through bit-torrent, or something?
}
} There are better solutions already on the table. The problem is that
} the gem index is really big. It doesn't need to be as big as it is.
I suspect that most of it doesn't change very often (meaning that the
amount of change from day to day is pretty small, not that there are large
pieces that never change). Perhaps rsync would be of use here.
} Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
--Greg
···
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 11:31:55AM +0900, Eric Hodel wrote:
Perhaps it would be possible to mirror the gems as opposed to the site itself? From what I can tell everything is coming from and relying on one server on what appears ( forgive me if I'm mistaken ) to be a DSL line. I've got servers and bandwidth spare in a datacentre, and I would love to use it for something useful as opposed to sitting there idling away....
Anyway, just a thought
Benjohn Barnes wrote:
···
On 29 Mar 2006, at 00:26, Peter Palmer wrote:
What sort of bandwidth is needed? Perhaps I can help set up a mirror service?
It's odd - a lot of the time seems to be taken up by updating the gem info from the remote site. I think this took longer than actually getting the gems down.
Gregory Seidman wrote:
···
On Wed, Mar 29, 2006 at 11:31:55AM +0900, Eric Hodel wrote:
} On Mar 28, 2006, at 3:22 PM, Benjohn Barnes wrote:
}
} >On 28 Mar 2006, at 22:40, David Ishmael wrote:
} >
} >>Whew, I was running out of ideas.
} >
} >Still seems to be grinding though. I wonder if gems could also be
} >distributed through bit-torrent, or something?
}
} There are better solutions already on the table. The problem is that
} the gem index is really big. It doesn't need to be as big as it is.I suspect that most of it doesn't change very often (meaning that the
amount of change from day to day is pretty small, not that there are
large
pieces that never change). Perhaps rsync would be of use here.} Eric Hodel - drbrain@segment7.net - http://blog.segment7.net
--Greg
The CVS head of rubygems will do incremental downloads of the index
file. We are working out the details of testing this on a large site
like RubyForge.
It's coming.
--
-- Jim Weirich
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Exactly right.
Yours,
Tom
···
On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 08:36 +0900, Benjohn Barnes wrote:
On 29 Mar 2006, at 00:26, Peter Palmer wrote:
> What sort of bandwidth is needed? Perhaps I can help set up a
> mirror service?It's odd - a lot of the time seems to be taken up by updating the gem
info from the remote site. I think this took longer than actually
getting the gems down.
Peter Palmer wrote:
Perhaps it would be possible to mirror the gems as opposed to the site itself?
That is what happens now. There are, I think, 6 gems mirrors.
···
--
James Britt
"In Ruby, no one cares who your parents were, all they care
about is if you know what you are talking about."
- Logan Capaldo