On Nov 23, 2010, at 5:55 PM, Aaron Patterson wrote: > On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 11:13:20PM +0100, Sven Fuchs wrote: >> https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/5969-bump-i18n-and-make-translationhelper-use-new-rescue_format-option#ticket-5969-8 >> https://github.com/svenfuchs/rails/commit/a0f059618cb6eb46dfb97ef49004da776bf00d4c >> With I18n 0.5.0 we'll ship some improvements to the exception api. This >> patch makes the translation view helper leverage those improvements (by not >> catching exceptions itself any more). > > Can you rebase this one from master? It didn't apply cleanly for me.
Sure. Will do that tomorrow. >> https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/6013-move-19-string-interpolation-syntax-backport-from-i18n-to-activesupport >> https://github.com/svenfuchs/rails/commit/85a05662fe7e0b06e9c7cd93cae9c3721058d879 >> We've shipped a backport of 1.9 string interpolation syntax for quite some >> versions in I18n. Now we're going to not use String#% anymore but implement >> our own helper method for it. Meanwhile Rails (and probably others) has >> started relying on this behavior and it seems appropriate to move this to >> ActiveSupport (should probably have been done right from the beginning). > > I'm still working on this. I'd like to get this patch in the backports > gem. I'm not sure which is more appropriate, AS, or backports: > > https://github.com/marcandre/backports Oh, I didn't even know about that. Is this required by Rails though? At least ActionPack relies on that String#% patch (routes behavior that uses the %{foo} syntax, iirc) but doesn't seem to require the Backports gem? In that case I'd guess it would need to go into ActiveSupport. >> https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/6027-define-respond_to-on-actiondispatchintegrationrunner >> https://github.com/svenfuchs/rails/commit/64438c2987b6ead8ec28f5962d7d43fa7f01bc3c >> This is just a small bug. ActionDispatch::Integration::Runner implements >> method_missing but misses respond_to?. This can make tests fail where >> application code relies on respond_to? > > This is applied. Thank you :) >> https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/2986-polymorphic_url-should-handle-sti-better#ticket-2986-13 >> https://github.com/svenfuchs/rails/commit/2d298f2a140cdc8388bf09ce517dd73b698c7a4e >> Ticket was opened by Luke Melia in August. I've now extracted an >> implementation from adva-cms2 that solves the problem and also seems to >> speed up polymorphic_url due to caching. Caching still needs to be tweaked >> though. >> >> https://rails.lighthouseapp.com/projects/8994/tickets/1975-allow-to-register-javascriptstylesheet_expansions-to-existing-symbols#ticket-1975-15 >> https://github.com/svenfuchs/rails/commit/b712476ac3f20d1e976ea431ccf44827c419a281 >> A ticket from the stone age when engines still were a rather obscure thing >> and people failed to see a usecase. We clearly have a need for this and thus >> I'm trying to bump this once again. The patch doesn't break bc. > > I'm still working on these two. :-) Anything I can help with here? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
