FYI...

This patch for a Vagrant setup was created to make it easier for non-MRI
developers to work on RubySpec.  Setting up an environment to compile the
most recent version of MRI can be intimidating and time consuming.  With a
Vagrant setup, developers that are capable of writing specifications can
get up and running in less than an hour without having to worry about
causing problems on their host machine.

https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/10757

Anthony

On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 7:39:35 AM Anthony Crumley <anthony.crumley / gmail.com>
wrote:

> Beniot and SHIBATA,
>
> The reason I started with rubyspec/rubyspec rather than nurse/rubyspec
> was, as SHIBATA mentioned, the 1.9.3 specs had already been removed.  I
> felt like 1.9.3 support would be dropped before the tests were up to date
> so that would save the work of removing them.  Also, it seemed like it
> would be easier to cherry pick new commits from nurse/rubyspec than then
> the other way around.
>
> SHIBATA, I am EXCITED to be able to work with you on RubySpec also.  :)
>
> Anthony
>
> On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 7:29:26 AM Anthony Crumley <
> anthony.crumley / gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> FYI...
>>
>> When I started working through the 2.x issues the results on 2.3 were...
>>
>> 1801 files, 18020 examples, 153894 expectations, 36 failures, 19 errors
>>
>> Now the results are...
>>
>> 1801 files, 18024 examples, 153918 expectations, 16 failures, 12 errors
>>
>> On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 7:16:57 AM Anthony Crumley <
>> anthony.crumley / gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Beniot,
>>>
>>> I have been working on reconciling RubySpec with the 2.x MRI versions
>>> over the last month.  https://github.com/anthonycrumley/rubyspec/
>>> commits/master
>>>
>>> My intention is to:
>>> 1) Get RubySpec updated to run with all the 2.x versions of MRI.
>>> 2) Get the nurse/rubyspec updates since the fork added.
>>> 3) Get the updated RubySpecs into the MRI CI.
>>> 4) Hopefully find that repo a home at either rubyspec/rubyspec or
>>> ruby/rubyspec.
>>>
>>> I agree with you that the RubySpec tests are very valuable and would
>>> LOVE to work with you on them.
>>>
>>> Anthony
>>>
>>> On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 6:59:48 AM Benoit Daloze <eregontp / gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 17 February 2015 at 13:32, Benoit Daloze <eregontp / gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> - The second step is really to choose a canonical RubySpec repository,
>>>>> to avoid "death by too much forks".
>>>>> This repository should only contain RubySpec tests for practical
>>>>> reasons.
>>>>> We should allow many specs contributors to take part in merging
>>>>> changes and maintaining specs.
>>>>> I think this was a fatal flaw of rubyspec/rubyspec in that too few
>>>>> people had the large burden of merging and maintaining the specs.
>>>>>
>>>>> The main existing repository I see today is nurse/rubyspec.
>>>>> I am thinking the process could be similar to handling pull requests
>>>>> on ruby/ruby in that some contributors would provide feedback and merge
>>>>> them.
>>>>> The CI is very useful in this regard to ensure MRI is not broken
>>>>> inadvertently.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think it would make sense in that case to move nurse/rubyspec to
>>>> ruby/rubyspec for clarity.
>>>>
>>>