You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@buildr.apache.org by Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com> on 2009/02/16 06:37:54 UTC
Scala 2.7.1 as default?
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
Re: Scala 2.7.1 as default?
Posted by Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>.
Ok, I've now upgraded the Scala dependencies.
alex
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 7:29 AM, Daniel Spiewak <dj...@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 <dj...@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 <bo...@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
> >>
> >
>
Re: Scala 2.7.1 as default?
Posted by Daniel Spiewak <dj...@gmail.com>.
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 <dj...@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 <bo...@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
>>
>
Re: Scala 2.7.1 as default?
Posted by Daniel Spiewak <dj...@gmail.com>.
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 <bo...@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
Scala 2.7.1 as default?
Posted by Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>.
(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
Re: Scala 2.7.1 as default?
Posted by Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com>.
On Sun, Feb 15, 2009 at 9:37 PM, Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com> wrote:
> 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)
Why can't the library default to one version and have people override it if
they so choose? That way, at least we're testing against one version, which
is better than no testing at all.
We run all the tests against one combination of versions, all other
combinations may be broken and we'll never know about them. We do use older
versions, but that's not the same as being backwards compatible (testing old
and new versions), just targeting what is probably a more common base
install.
On that note, I have Scala 2.7.3 installed via MacPorts, MacPorts is not
known for being cutting edge, which is precisely why I use it. The install
is dated Jan 22, will be over a month old before the next release of Buildr.
So +1 on upgrading to a newer version of Scala.
Assaf
>
> alex
>
Scala 2.7.1 as default?
Posted by Alex Boisvert <bo...@intalio.com>.
(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