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: svn commit: r930784 - in /buildr/trunk: CHANGELOG lib/buildr/scala/bdd.rb
Date Mon, 05 Apr 2010 04:23:15 GMT
As scary as this may seem, I've migrated all my projects to Scala 2.8 and
self-compiled versions of ScalaTest and ScalaCheck for 2.8 and I'm a happy
camper.    (I don't use Specs anymore since ScalaTest has introduced
WordSpec)

I suspect our time is better invested in ensuring things work on 2.8 when
the release settles down than trying to get 2.7 working perfectly.    I
doubt we'll get much support from the Scala crew at EPFL fixing issues on
2.7.

My $0.02,
alex


On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Daniel Spiewak <djspiewak@gmail.com> wrote:

> That's it.  However, I have since discovered that the issue seems to be
> 100%
> repeatable and isn't dependent on any weird use of the integration.  Even
> the simplest of Specs+ScalaCheck tests cause the Scala 2.7.7 compiler to
> crash when using Specs 1.6.2 and ScalaCheck 1.5.  Things work just fine
> with
> ScalaCheck 1.6.
>
> Daniel
>
> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 10:27 PM, Antoine Toulme <antoine@lunar-ocean.com
> >wrote:
>
> > That's the problem you describe with
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-410, right ?
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 20:24, Daniel Spiewak <djspiewak@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > We *need* to address the issue of the ScalaCheck version, which is
> > woefully
> > > outdated and quite incompatible with Specs (and Scala 2.7.7 for that
> > > matter).  I seem to recall that the current version (1.6) is
> incompatible
> > > with ScalaTest 1.0, but since ScalaTest hasn't made a release since
> Scala
> > > 2.7.3, I'm starting to wonder if it's worth holding back our support
> for
> > > other frameworks just to keep it working out of the box.  Users can
> > always
> > > set the scalacheck.version property (as they are currently forced to do
> > if
> > > they want to use Specs).  What say you?
> > >
> > > Daniel
> > >
> > > On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 9:20 PM, <boisvert@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Author: boisvert
> > > > Date: Mon Apr  5 02:20:17 2010
> > > > New Revision: 930784
> > > >
> > > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=930784&view=rev
> > > > Log:
> > > > Upgrade to Scala Specs 1.6.2.1
> > > >
> > > > Modified:
> > > >    buildr/trunk/CHANGELOG
> > > >    buildr/trunk/lib/buildr/scala/bdd.rb
> > > >
> > > > Modified: buildr/trunk/CHANGELOG
> > > > URL:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/buildr/trunk/CHANGELOG?rev=930784&r1=930783&r2=930784&view=diff
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> ==============================================================================
> > > > --- buildr/trunk/CHANGELOG (original)
> > > > +++ buildr/trunk/CHANGELOG Mon Apr  5 02:20:17 2010
> > > > @@ -41,7 +41,7 @@
> > > >  * Change: Updated to JUnit 4.7
> > > >  * Change: Updated to JMock 2.5.1 (Antoine Toulme)
> > > >  * Change: Updated to RJB 1.2.0
> > > > -* Change: Updated to Scala Specs 1.6.2
> > > > +* Change: Updated to Scala Specs 1.6.2.1
> > > >  * Change: Load buildr.rb from $HOME/.buildr instead of $HOME
> > > >           ($HOME/buildr.rb is still loaded with deprecation warning)
> > > >  * Change: BUILDR-400 Don't forbid projects to use their own compiler
> > > after
> > > > one has been guessed
> > > >
> > > > Modified: buildr/trunk/lib/buildr/scala/bdd.rb
> > > > URL:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/buildr/trunk/lib/buildr/scala/bdd.rb?rev=930784&r1=930783&r2=930784&view=diff
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> ==============================================================================
> > > > --- buildr/trunk/lib/buildr/scala/bdd.rb (original)
> > > > +++ buildr/trunk/lib/buildr/scala/bdd.rb Mon Apr  5 02:20:17 2010
> > > > @@ -32,7 +32,7 @@ module Buildr::Scala
> > > >     @lang = :scala
> > > >     @bdd_dir = :spec
> > > >
> > > > -    VERSION = '1.6.2'
> > > > +    VERSION = '1.6.2.1'
> > > >
> > > >     class << self
> > > >       def version
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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