[MacRuby-devel] Contributions (Was: Experimental branch status)

[dan sinclair]

Is the goal to keep all of the tutorials on the main macruby site? I  
enjoy writing them but prefer to post them to everburning to keep them  
with the rest of my stuff.  If the goal is to have them on the website  
I can port the 3 HotCocoa bits I've written over to whatever it is the  
website uses.

Along with that, there is no good way to get to the trac to view  
tickets on the website. The only link, that I've found, is to use the  
file a ticket section of the contact page and navigate out from there.  
Might be a good idea to make it easier for people to submit bugs/find  
bugs to work on.

dan



On May 29, 2009, at 6:31 PM, Laurent Sansonetti wrote:

> So, to recap, I think the following contributions will be welcome:
>
> - Maintaining the website (blog, content, etc.) and writing  
> tutorials. There are lots of very interesting blog posts around that  
> could I think be transformed into a tutorial or into a recipe  
> (shorter tutorial). I think we need more recipes, for instance how  
> to embed MacRuby in your app, how to use a specific and complex  
> Cocoa class (NSOutlineView/NSTableView/etc.) in Ruby, etc.
>
> - Writing / translating sample code for MacRuby. We will bundle it  
> in the MacRuby distribution. If you wrote anything interesting in  
> MacRuby that could be used as a sample code, let us now. Creating  
> new sample code is cool, but porting an existing Objective-C sample  
> code is good too.
>
> - Specs: working on the 1.8 -> 1.9 rubyspec transition (see Eloy's  
> message above). Eloy is currently doing all the specs maintenance as  
> well and I think he will not be against help :) Also, we recently  
> started writing MacRuby-specific specs, they need to be extended.  
> Finally, we need to start working on passing the core specs (we only  
> did language so far).
>
> - Porting C extensions to the Ruby FFI API. We started working on a  
> compatible Ruby FFI API, we still have a plan to support C  
> extensions but not in the very near future and the performance will  
> not be great, FFI will be faster. Also if most of the well-known C  
> extensions have been ported, we might simply decide to not support C  
> extensions, which is one less thing to do. Also, working on Ruby FFI- 
> compatible libraries will make JRuby / Rubinius / etc. users happy :)
>
> - HotCocoa: I will leave this part to Rich and Matt, but I think  
> they will be mostly interested in mappings. Try to create a HotCocoa  
> app, then contribute mappings for things that do not exist (or  
> improve the existing ones by contributing custom methods, etc.).
>
> - Core: there are lots of things to do, if you feel hacking on the  
> low-level bits. We maintain a TODO file which contains a few things  
> that still need to be done. At this point, the JIT compiler is  
> almost finished (AOT is maybe finished at 10%, though) and the VM is  
> still under development. A good way to start hacking is to run the  
> test_vm.rb test suite, pick a failing test and try to fix it.  
> Contributing new failing tests is also highly welcome, you can  
> simply use the miniruby executable and try to make it crash (it's  
> not hard, you will see).
>
> - ... anything more? :)
>
> Laurent
>
> On May 29, 2009, at 6:57 AM, Eloy Duran wrote:
>
>> I haven't actively spoken about this with Laurent over the last  
>> week, but afaik not much changed since last time, which means that  
>> the support is not nearly far enough to start using it. We decided  
>> that we want the FFI specs in the repo in order to finish this work  
>> appropriately, which would need work to be converted from RSpec to  
>> MSpec.
>>
>> Luckily Brian Ford (from the rubyspec project) was already planning  
>> on incorporating them. I haven't had time to check if they're in  
>> yet. So this is another area where people could help out. By  
>> porting the ruby-ffi specs to mspec and integrating them into the  
>> rubyspec.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Eloy
>>
>> On May 29, 2009, at 1:28 PM, Chuck Remes wrote:
>>
>>> How is progress on support FFI? That seems to be the new ruby-way  
>>> for interfacing to native code supported by JRuby, Rubinius and to  
>>> some extent the 1.9.x codeline. With FFI built in, as gems are  
>>> updated to support the other ruby interpreters and/or compilers  
>>> then MacRuby would be supported for "free" through those efforts.
>>>
>>> cr
>>>
>>> On May 28, 2009, at 11:42 PM, Matt Aimonetti wrote:
>>>
>>>> The other thing that needs to be done is to port/fix the popular  
>>>> Ruby gems which don't work on MacRuby yet. Also, writing wrappers  
>>>> for common obj-c libraries/frameworks would be very useful.
>>>>
>>>> If you are interested in writing tutorials/articles, feel free to  
>>>> contact me offline so I can show you how to use our blog engine  
>>>> tool. (I think Rich is planning on releasing a tutorial on how to  
>>>> do that, but that might not happen right away)
>>>>
>>>> - Matt
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> MacRuby-devel mailing list
>>> MacRuby-devel at lists.macosforge.org
>>> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macruby-devel
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MacRuby-devel mailing list
>> MacRuby-devel at lists.macosforge.org
>> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macruby-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> MacRuby-devel mailing list
> MacRuby-devel at lists.macosforge.org
> http://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/macruby-devel