buildr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Boisvert <alex.boisv...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release (take 2)
Date Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:15:33 GMT
I've updated the binary packages (now include .class files) and tested fresh
install of .gem works on some large real-world projects.  The original
source packages remain untouched.

As an added bonus, I found a machine where rcov doesn't segfault so the
updated site has full test coverage reports:
http://people.apache.org/~boisvert/buildr/1.3.5/site/coverage/

alex


On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Rhett Sutphin <rhett@detailedbalance.net>wrote:

> +1 on the source package, then.
>
> Rhett
>
> On Oct 6, 2009, at 10:01 PM, Alex Boisvert wrote:
>
>  On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Rhett Sutphin <rhett@detailedbalance.net
>> >wrote:
>>
>>  Does an up vote on these endorse
>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~boisvert/buildr/1.3.5/dist/<http://people.apache.org/%7Eboisvert/buildr/1.3.5/dist/>
>>> buildr-1.3.5.gem<
>>> http://people.apache.org/%7Eboisvert/buildr/1.3.5/dist/buildr-1.3.5.gem>
>>>
>>> ?  I ask because it is missing the classes compiled by `rake compile`.
>>> They do compile correctly from the source tgz.
>>>
>>>
>> Total party foul.   They should have been part of the package.  Apparently
>> staging didn't produce the same gems as "rake gem".  I'll look into it.
>>
>> The vote only applies to the source packaging.
>>
>> alex
>>
>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message