Anthony,

Thank you for what you already did!

I am not sure about how to merge concretely yet, but cherry-picking 152
commits might prove quite problematic.
I would rather merge to keep both historic as intact as possible and add
commits after to fix the various issues, errors and failures.

Let's coordinate when we have ruby/rubyspec, either in an issue or IRC.

On 17 February 2015 at 14:39, 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.
>>>>
>>>