buildr-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Antoine Toulme <anto...@lunar-ocean.com>
Subject Re: Buildr 1.4.0 RC1
Date Thu, 22 Apr 2010 03:51:17 GMT
I'll try to cut RC2 now, unless you're on it ?

Thanks Daniel!

On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 19:46, Daniel Spiewak <djspiewak@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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