Hello,

Thank you for your replies.

> It would be great if #8357 would also make it too.
I've backported r40561 at r40575.

> #8015
As I announced at [ruby-core:52534], new features will not be backported.

> #8092
> #8093
> #8095
These were already backported via [Backport #8147], [Backport #8146]
and [Backport #8145].

> #8142
> #8143
> #8149
These seem like performance optimization patches.
The optimization patches have less priority for backport.
I think a patch achieves noticeable performance improvement could be treated
as "a bug fix". It'll fixes a heavy performance reduction ;-)
But now, just before the coming release, I want to be conservative.

Thanks,


2013/5/6 Aman Gupta <ruby / tmm1.net>:
> Could you please backport the following:
>
> #8015
> #8092
> #8093
> #8095
> #8142
> #8143
> #8149
>
> On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 6:13 AM, Marc-Andre Lafortune
> <ruby-core-mailing-list / marc-andre.ca> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> It would be great if #8357 would also make it too.
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 26, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Tomoyuki Chikanaga <nagachika00 / gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd like to release the first 2.0.0 patchlevel release about 2nd week of
>>> May (after the japanese holidays week).
>>> I will backport for some major issues, then move to release preparation
>>> phase.
>>> I've heard that [Bug #8040] has been expected to included in next release.
>>>
>>> If you have some important issues, please tell me.
>>> And when I create a test package, please help to check it.
>>>
>>> Thank you for your kind support.
>>
>>
>