buildr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Spiewak <djspie...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Buildr 1.4.0 RC1
Date Thu, 22 Apr 2010 02:46:15 GMT
The issues with the specs were caused by flaky FSC.  I've rejiggered the
Rake task to turn off FSC when running the spec suite (for Buildr).  All the
specs are passing now, so we can go ahead and cut RC2.

In the meantime, I'm going to grab the latest from the JRuby 1.5 stream and
run through my litany of projects to see if everything looks sane.  Unless
anything dramatic comes up in the next couple days, I think we should call
it a release.  Hopefully we can avoid pushing this back any more...  :-)

Daniel

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Antoine Toulme <antoine@lunar-ocean.com>wrote:

> The release script will fail if I try to release with failing specs. The
> alternative is to comment them as pending.
> I can try to tackle them very quickly - but my Scala book is supposed to
> arrive tomorrow.
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 17:06, Daniel Spiewak <djspiewak@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> We can either issue RC2, or we can go straight to the full release.  My
>> impression is that JRuby 1.5 isn't going to go GA for a while, so it's not
>> worth waiting unless there's a testing advantage (like fixing those specs I
>> don't understand).  :-)
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Antoine Toulme <antoine@lunar-ocean.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I'm all for it. Want to issue RC2 ? I can try again, with pygments this
>>> time.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 22:47, Daniel Spiewak <djspiewak@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Default versions for ScalaCheck and ScalaTest pushed to 1.6 and 1.0.1,
>>> > respectively (Bill just made the release).  Three tests are failing in
>>> the
>>> > ScalaTest specs, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with ScalaTest as to
>>> > figure out what's going on (one of them just looks like a transient FSC
>>> > failure).
>>> >
>>> > Once we get these passing again (and assuming it's before Tuesday), I
>>> vote
>>> > that we cut a new release candidate so we can get some more testing in
>>> > before our deadline for JRuby 1.5.
>>> >
>>> > Daniel
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Alex Boisvert <
>>> alex.boisvert@gmail.com
>>> > >wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Daniel Spiewak <djspiewak@gmail.com
>>> >
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > I thought about that, but I'm leery about holding up our release
>>> even
>>> > > > longer.  I wouldn't mind giving them one or two days, but any
>>> longer...
>>> > > >
>>> > > > How about this: we allow maybe two days waiting for JRuby 1.5.
 In
>>> the
>>> > > > meantime, we test with the 1.5 RC to make sure there isn't anything
>>> > that
>>> > > > would trip us up.  If 1.5 GA doesn't come out before Tuesday night,
>>> we
>>> > do
>>> > > > the 1.4 release without it.  Once 1.5 comes out, we can test
>>> against it
>>> > > and
>>> > > > repackage the all-in-one distribution.  If there are any bugs
which
>>> > crop
>>> > > up
>>> > > > because of changes from 1.5 RC to 1.5 GA, we can do a 1.4.1 (or
>>> perhaps
>>> > > > 1.4.0.1) release at that time.  I don't see this as a particularly
>>> > likely
>>> > > > scenario though, it seems like all we should need to do is
>>> repackage
>>> > the
>>> > > > all-in-one and we'll be golden.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > How does that strike everyone?
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > > Fine by me.
>>> > >
>>> > > alex
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>

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