issue with buildr-dev mailing list, suggestion

[Shane Witbeck <sh...@digitalsanctum.com>]

I'm posting here after 2 failed attempts to post on the buildr-dev
list. I also haven't received any new messages since May 20.

Being a buildr user for almost a year now and having a vested interest
in seeing Buildr continue to be successful, I'd like to make a strong
suggestion.

It seems that now, just after the 1.3.1 release, there's another
dependency issue around Antwrap, hoe, and rubyforge. So yet again the
standard way of installing is broken and will most likely discourage a
lot of newcomers to Buildr knowing they have to constantly work around
the dependency issues. I realize this is a caveat of a remote
dependency system but I really think we need to do a better job of
either documenting these issues (on the main Buildr site) or start
assembling installs to insulate ourselves from the dependency-related
woes. In my opinion, this should be the top priority above all other
planned features.

Has anyone else considered making the installs easier and less prone
to these issues?

-- 
-Shane

Re: issue with buildr-dev mailing list, suggestion

[Assaf Arkin <ar...@intalio.com>]

I got the e-mail twice (I was wondering why it showed up again as
unread).  The thing about Apache mailing lists, you don't get a copy
of the message you post, only replies, which I still think is
annoying, but not sure is fixable.

I'm still drafting a review of the things I tried, and some that are
worth trying to work around this.

Assaf

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Shane Witbeck <sh...@digitalsanctum.com> wrote:
> I'm posting here after 2 failed attempts to post on the buildr-dev
> list. I also haven't received any new messages since May 20.
>
> Being a buildr user for almost a year now and having a vested interest
> in seeing Buildr continue to be successful, I'd like to make a strong
> suggestion.
>
> It seems that now, just after the 1.3.1 release, there's another
> dependency issue around Antwrap, hoe, and rubyforge. So yet again the
> standard way of installing is broken and will most likely discourage a
> lot of newcomers to Buildr knowing they have to constantly work around
> the dependency issues. I realize this is a caveat of a remote
> dependency system but I really think we need to do a better job of
> either documenting these issues (on the main Buildr site) or start
> assembling installs to insulate ourselves from the dependency-related
> woes. In my opinion, this should be the top priority above all other
> planned features.
>
> Has anyone else considered making the installs easier and less prone
> to these issues?
>
> --
> -Shane
>



-- 
CTO, Intalio
http://www.intalio.com