Jim Weirich wrote:
> 
> On Jul 8, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Sam Ruby wrote:
> 
>> It is not just prodding them with a stick - we have gem maintainers 
>> who haven't integrated patches, or even responded to email.
>>
>> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/01/04/Builder-on-1-9
>> http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/01/07/Rake-Contrib-for-1-9
> 
> Ouch.  Ok, I've dropped the ball on those and am adding them to my todo 
> lists.

Sweet!  Thanks.

> I haven't reviewed the builder patches yet.  Are these two URLs the same 
> patch?
> 
>    http://intertwingly.net/projects/ruby19/patches/builder.patch
>    http://intertwingly.net/stories/2008/01/04/builder5.diff

If they differ, the top one is the latest, and the one used to produce this:

http://intertwingly.net/projects/ruby19/logs/builder.html

> Re the rake patch.  The rake patch, if the contrib is split out into its 
> own gem, it should also be removed from the original rake gem ... I 
> think.  Feedback welcome.

Agreed.

> BTW, did you get a chance to review that builder patch for the CP1252 
> character?  Should be dated around June 16th.  If you didn't get it, I 
> will resend.

Please resend.  I don't see it, and I did have some email issues in June.

- Sam Ruby