On 31/12/15 11:02, Leo Famulari wrote:
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:44:36AM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
On 24/12/15 05:04, Leo Famulari wrote:
LGTM, thanks! Pushed as 1b9d4e2e20.
I came across a subtle problem. Because the old miniportile is
"ruby-mini-portile" and the new one is "ruby-mini-
On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 10:44:36AM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
>
>
> On 24/12/15 05:04, Leo Famulari wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:29:49PM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
> >>Nokogiri now requires an updated version of mini_portile (the gem was
> >>renamed to mini_portile2), but given that new
On 24/12/15 05:04, Leo Famulari wrote:
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:29:49PM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
Nokogiri now requires an updated version of mini_portile (the gem was
renamed to mini_portile2), but given that new versions of the 0.6.x branch
still seem to be released I think keeping a sep
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 10:29:49PM +1000, Ben Woodcroft wrote:
> Nokogiri now requires an updated version of mini_portile (the gem was
> renamed to mini_portile2), but given that new versions of the 0.6.x branch
> still seem to be released I think keeping a separate mini_portile package is
> the go
Nokogiri now requires an updated version of mini_portile (the gem was
renamed to mini_portile2), but given that new versions of the 0.6.x
branch still seem to be released I think keeping a separate mini_portile
package is the go.
TIA.
>From 1239963682ba7ff049fb9be8a56926ca23d32b64 Mon Sep 17 0
