buildr-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alex Boisvert <boisv...@intalio.com>
Subject Re: Scala 2.7.1 as default?
Date Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:18:39 GMT
Ok, I've now upgraded the Scala dependencies.

alex


On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Daniel Spiewak <djspiewak@gmail.com> wrote:

> git://github.com/djspiewak/buildr.git / separate-scala-specs
>
> Specs: 1.4.3
> ScalaCheck: 1.5
>
> git://github.com/djspiewak/buildr.git / master
>
> ""
> ""
> ScalaTest: 0.9.4
>
> The ScalaTest version increment is untested with Buildr, but the other two
> are working fine (and have been for a while).
>
> Daniel
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:06 AM, Daniel Spiewak <djspiewak@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I don't know anything about ScalaTest, but Specs and ScalaCheck are both
> > updated within my Git fork.  http://github.com/djspiewak/buildr
> >
> > Daniel
> >
> >
> > On Feb 15, 2009, at 11:40 PM, Alex Boisvert <boisvert@intalio.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >  (Resending... forgot the "s" in users@buildr.apache.org)
> >>
> >> Buildr currently assumes Scala 2.7.1 as default by its choice of test
> >> libraries (scala-specs 1.2.9, scalatest 0.9.3 and scalacheck 1.3) which
> >> are
> >> binary-incompatible with newer versions of Scala.
> >>
> >> Would anyone object to upgrading these libraries to the latest currently
> >> available?   I understand we want to maintain backward compatibility in
> >> Buildr but if no one is still using Scala 2.7.1 then I don't think it
> >> makes
> >> much sense to do so.
> >>
> >> Perhaps it would make more sense to have no library defaults until
> things
> >> have stabilized?  (i.e., require users to specify versions in
> build.yaml)
> >>
> >> alex
> >>
> >
>

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