Update on JRuby 1.5 support

[Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>]

Good news!

We got all specs pass on JRuby 1.5. They had a bug, full story on
BUILDR-441.

Bad news!

We still have some specs not passing with JRuby 1.5 and Windows 7:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-443

Good news!

We're going to get them pass before you know it.

@headius: let me know when we can look at it together. Probably next week
for me.

Thanks,

Antoine

Re: Update on JRuby 1.5 support

[Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com>]

Good news all around.  Thanks Antoine!!  (And the JRuby folks for their
help)

alex


On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 1:49 PM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>wrote:

> Good news!
>
> We got all specs pass on JRuby 1.5. They had a bug, full story on
> BUILDR-441.
>
> Bad news!
>
> We still have some specs not passing with JRuby 1.5 and Windows 7:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-443
>
> Good news!
>
> We're going to get them pass before you know it.
>
> @headius: let me know when we can look at it together. Probably next week
> for me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Antoine
>

Re: Update on JRuby 1.5 support

[Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>]

svn is the authoritative repository. We have a git mirror at Apache (
git.apache.org) and a mirror of the mirror on github.

Thanks,

Antoine

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 17:42, Tal Rotbart <re...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry that's rubygem 1.3.6/7
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Tal Rotbart <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I guess I'll have to install from trunk, due to this and also Buildr
> > 1.3.5 doesn't support rubygem 1.8.6/7
> > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-384).
> >
> > Is the authoritative trunk still SVN or is it on git?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Tal
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>
> wrote:
> >> Yes. Our trunk now works with jruby 1.5, they had a regression that
> blocked
> >> us.
> >>
> >> They are releasing JRuby 1.5.1 this week and I think we should release
> at
> >> that time.
> >>
> >> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 17:26, Tal Rotbart <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi guys,
> >>>
> >>> Following the different threads regarding Buildr and JRuby 1.5 is
> >>> confusing -- am I correct in understanding that it is only with Buildr
> >>> 1.4 that the support for JRuby 1.5 will be available?
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Tal
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Antoine Toulme <
> antoine@lunar-ocean.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > How about we add a spec for it over ruby core ? Just so that all ruby
> >>> impls
> >>> > align on that.
> >>> > I'm filing http://rubyspec.org/projects/rubyspec/issues/show?id=226for
> >>> > this. Let's see how it goes.
> >>> >
> >>> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:25, Charles Oliver Nutter <
> >>> headius@headius.com>wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> I doubt it was intentional...I'm sure we're just getting the full
> raw
> >>> >> ms time and using that. It may represent a valid behavioral
> difference
> >>> >> (i.e. maybe the specified behavior should be only checking seconds)
> >>> >> but that seems unlikely...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Anyway, I'll leave it in your hands if you guys want to file a bug
> or
> >>> not.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Antoine Toulme <
> >>> antoine@lunar-ocean.com>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > Alex pointed me to the fact that a.mtime == b.mtime compares
> values to
> >>> a
> >>> >> > unit smaller than a second, while it apparently stops at the
> second so
> >>> >> far
> >>> >> > with MRI.
> >>> >> > So we stopped doing mtime equality because it was a bad idea, but
> you
> >>> >> might
> >>> >> > want to look into this, if that change was not intended.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:14, Charles Oliver Nutter <
> >>> >> headius@headius.com>
> >>> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Antoine Toulme <
> >>> >> antoine@lunar-ocean.com>
> >>> >> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:02, Charles Oliver Nutter
> >>> >> >> > <he...@headius.com>
> >>> >> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> I have not looked at the issues...they don't happen with RJB?
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > No idea, because win7 and RJB kinda suck.
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> It could
> >>> >> >> >> be a problem with the way we implement mtime on Windows. Any
> >>> update
> >>> >> on
> >>> >> >> >> this in the past few days? (I was out of town).
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > We changed the way we test mtime. Instead of doing ==, we now
> use <
> >>> >> and
> >>> >> >> > > to
> >>> >> >> > avoid races.
> >>> >> >> > We still have a few failing specs re permissions. No headway on
> >>> those.
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >>
> >>> >> >> >> We're looking to push JRuby 1.5.1 very soon, so if there's
> >>> something
> >>> >> >> >> to fix we need to get it in.
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > So far nothing to report.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> If you can narrow it down to something specific broken in JRuby,
> >>> we'll
> >>> >> >> gladly fix it.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> - Charlie
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

Re: Update on JRuby 1.5 support

[Tal Rotbart <re...@gmail.com>]

Sorry that's rubygem 1.3.6/7

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Tal Rotbart <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I guess I'll have to install from trunk, due to this and also Buildr
> 1.3.5 doesn't support rubygem 1.8.6/7
> (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-384).
>
> Is the authoritative trunk still SVN or is it on git?
>
> Cheers,
> Tal
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com> wrote:
>> Yes. Our trunk now works with jruby 1.5, they had a regression that blocked
>> us.
>>
>> They are releasing JRuby 1.5.1 this week and I think we should release at
>> that time.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 17:26, Tal Rotbart <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi guys,
>>>
>>> Following the different threads regarding Buildr and JRuby 1.5 is
>>> confusing -- am I correct in understanding that it is only with Buildr
>>> 1.4 that the support for JRuby 1.5 will be available?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Tal
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > How about we add a spec for it over ruby core ? Just so that all ruby
>>> impls
>>> > align on that.
>>> > I'm filing http://rubyspec.org/projects/rubyspec/issues/show?id=226 for
>>> > this. Let's see how it goes.
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:25, Charles Oliver Nutter <
>>> headius@headius.com>wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> I doubt it was intentional...I'm sure we're just getting the full raw
>>> >> ms time and using that. It may represent a valid behavioral difference
>>> >> (i.e. maybe the specified behavior should be only checking seconds)
>>> >> but that seems unlikely...
>>> >>
>>> >> Anyway, I'll leave it in your hands if you guys want to file a bug or
>>> not.
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Antoine Toulme <
>>> antoine@lunar-ocean.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > Alex pointed me to the fact that a.mtime == b.mtime compares values to
>>> a
>>> >> > unit smaller than a second, while it apparently stops at the second so
>>> >> far
>>> >> > with MRI.
>>> >> > So we stopped doing mtime equality because it was a bad idea, but you
>>> >> might
>>> >> > want to look into this, if that change was not intended.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:14, Charles Oliver Nutter <
>>> >> headius@headius.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Antoine Toulme <
>>> >> antoine@lunar-ocean.com>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:02, Charles Oliver Nutter
>>> >> >> > <he...@headius.com>
>>> >> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> I have not looked at the issues...they don't happen with RJB?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > No idea, because win7 and RJB kinda suck.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> It could
>>> >> >> >> be a problem with the way we implement mtime on Windows. Any
>>> update
>>> >> on
>>> >> >> >> this in the past few days? (I was out of town).
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > We changed the way we test mtime. Instead of doing ==, we now use <
>>> >> and
>>> >> >> > > to
>>> >> >> > avoid races.
>>> >> >> > We still have a few failing specs re permissions. No headway on
>>> those.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> We're looking to push JRuby 1.5.1 very soon, so if there's
>>> something
>>> >> >> >> to fix we need to get it in.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > So far nothing to report.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> If you can narrow it down to something specific broken in JRuby,
>>> we'll
>>> >> >> gladly fix it.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> - Charlie
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>
>

Re: Update on JRuby 1.5 support

[Tal Rotbart <re...@gmail.com>]

I guess I'll have to install from trunk, due to this and also Buildr
1.3.5 doesn't support rubygem 1.8.6/7
(https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-384).

Is the authoritative trunk still SVN or is it on git?

Cheers,
Tal

On Wed, Jun 2, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com> wrote:
> Yes. Our trunk now works with jruby 1.5, they had a regression that blocked
> us.
>
> They are releasing JRuby 1.5.1 this week and I think we should release at
> that time.
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 17:26, Tal Rotbart <re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> Following the different threads regarding Buildr and JRuby 1.5 is
>> confusing -- am I correct in understanding that it is only with Buildr
>> 1.4 that the support for JRuby 1.5 will be available?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Tal
>>
>> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>
>> wrote:
>> > How about we add a spec for it over ruby core ? Just so that all ruby
>> impls
>> > align on that.
>> > I'm filing http://rubyspec.org/projects/rubyspec/issues/show?id=226 for
>> > this. Let's see how it goes.
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:25, Charles Oliver Nutter <
>> headius@headius.com>wrote:
>> >
>> >> I doubt it was intentional...I'm sure we're just getting the full raw
>> >> ms time and using that. It may represent a valid behavioral difference
>> >> (i.e. maybe the specified behavior should be only checking seconds)
>> >> but that seems unlikely...
>> >>
>> >> Anyway, I'll leave it in your hands if you guys want to file a bug or
>> not.
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Antoine Toulme <
>> antoine@lunar-ocean.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > Alex pointed me to the fact that a.mtime == b.mtime compares values to
>> a
>> >> > unit smaller than a second, while it apparently stops at the second so
>> >> far
>> >> > with MRI.
>> >> > So we stopped doing mtime equality because it was a bad idea, but you
>> >> might
>> >> > want to look into this, if that change was not intended.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:14, Charles Oliver Nutter <
>> >> headius@headius.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Antoine Toulme <
>> >> antoine@lunar-ocean.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:02, Charles Oliver Nutter
>> >> >> > <he...@headius.com>
>> >> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> I have not looked at the issues...they don't happen with RJB?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > No idea, because win7 and RJB kinda suck.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It could
>> >> >> >> be a problem with the way we implement mtime on Windows. Any
>> update
>> >> on
>> >> >> >> this in the past few days? (I was out of town).
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > We changed the way we test mtime. Instead of doing ==, we now use <
>> >> and
>> >> >> > > to
>> >> >> > avoid races.
>> >> >> > We still have a few failing specs re permissions. No headway on
>> those.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> We're looking to push JRuby 1.5.1 very soon, so if there's
>> something
>> >> >> >> to fix we need to get it in.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > So far nothing to report.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> If you can narrow it down to something specific broken in JRuby,
>> we'll
>> >> >> gladly fix it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> - Charlie
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>>
>

Re: Update on JRuby 1.5 support

[Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>]

Yes. Our trunk now works with jruby 1.5, they had a regression that blocked
us.

They are releasing JRuby 1.5.1 this week and I think we should release at
that time.

On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 17:26, Tal Rotbart <re...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi guys,
>
> Following the different threads regarding Buildr and JRuby 1.5 is
> confusing -- am I correct in understanding that it is only with Buildr
> 1.4 that the support for JRuby 1.5 will be available?
>
> Cheers,
> Tal
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>
> wrote:
> > How about we add a spec for it over ruby core ? Just so that all ruby
> impls
> > align on that.
> > I'm filing http://rubyspec.org/projects/rubyspec/issues/show?id=226 for
> > this. Let's see how it goes.
> >
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:25, Charles Oliver Nutter <
> headius@headius.com>wrote:
> >
> >> I doubt it was intentional...I'm sure we're just getting the full raw
> >> ms time and using that. It may represent a valid behavioral difference
> >> (i.e. maybe the specified behavior should be only checking seconds)
> >> but that seems unlikely...
> >>
> >> Anyway, I'll leave it in your hands if you guys want to file a bug or
> not.
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Antoine Toulme <
> antoine@lunar-ocean.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Alex pointed me to the fact that a.mtime == b.mtime compares values to
> a
> >> > unit smaller than a second, while it apparently stops at the second so
> >> far
> >> > with MRI.
> >> > So we stopped doing mtime equality because it was a bad idea, but you
> >> might
> >> > want to look into this, if that change was not intended.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:14, Charles Oliver Nutter <
> >> headius@headius.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Antoine Toulme <
> >> antoine@lunar-ocean.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:02, Charles Oliver Nutter
> >> >> > <he...@headius.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I have not looked at the issues...they don't happen with RJB?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > No idea, because win7 and RJB kinda suck.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> It could
> >> >> >> be a problem with the way we implement mtime on Windows. Any
> update
> >> on
> >> >> >> this in the past few days? (I was out of town).
> >> >> >
> >> >> > We changed the way we test mtime. Instead of doing ==, we now use <
> >> and
> >> >> > > to
> >> >> > avoid races.
> >> >> > We still have a few failing specs re permissions. No headway on
> those.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> We're looking to push JRuby 1.5.1 very soon, so if there's
> something
> >> >> >> to fix we need to get it in.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So far nothing to report.
> >> >>
> >> >> If you can narrow it down to something specific broken in JRuby,
> we'll
> >> >> gladly fix it.
> >> >>
> >> >> - Charlie
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>

Re: Update on JRuby 1.5 support

[Tal Rotbart <re...@gmail.com>]

Hi guys,

Following the different threads regarding Buildr and JRuby 1.5 is
confusing -- am I correct in understanding that it is only with Buildr
1.4 that the support for JRuby 1.5 will be available?

Cheers,
Tal

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:41 AM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com> wrote:
> How about we add a spec for it over ruby core ? Just so that all ruby impls
> align on that.
> I'm filing http://rubyspec.org/projects/rubyspec/issues/show?id=226 for
> this. Let's see how it goes.
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:25, Charles Oliver Nutter <he...@headius.com>wrote:
>
>> I doubt it was intentional...I'm sure we're just getting the full raw
>> ms time and using that. It may represent a valid behavioral difference
>> (i.e. maybe the specified behavior should be only checking seconds)
>> but that seems unlikely...
>>
>> Anyway, I'll leave it in your hands if you guys want to file a bug or not.
>>
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Alex pointed me to the fact that a.mtime == b.mtime compares values to a
>> > unit smaller than a second, while it apparently stops at the second so
>> far
>> > with MRI.
>> > So we stopped doing mtime equality because it was a bad idea, but you
>> might
>> > want to look into this, if that change was not intended.
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:14, Charles Oliver Nutter <
>> headius@headius.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Antoine Toulme <
>> antoine@lunar-ocean.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:02, Charles Oliver Nutter
>> >> > <he...@headius.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I have not looked at the issues...they don't happen with RJB?
>> >> >
>> >> > No idea, because win7 and RJB kinda suck.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It could
>> >> >> be a problem with the way we implement mtime on Windows. Any update
>> on
>> >> >> this in the past few days? (I was out of town).
>> >> >
>> >> > We changed the way we test mtime. Instead of doing ==, we now use <
>> and
>> >> > > to
>> >> > avoid races.
>> >> > We still have a few failing specs re permissions. No headway on those.
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> We're looking to push JRuby 1.5.1 very soon, so if there's something
>> >> >> to fix we need to get it in.
>> >> >
>> >> > So far nothing to report.
>> >>
>> >> If you can narrow it down to something specific broken in JRuby, we'll
>> >> gladly fix it.
>> >>
>> >> - Charlie
>> >
>> >
>>
>

Re: Update on JRuby 1.5 support

[Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>]

How about we add a spec for it over ruby core ? Just so that all ruby impls
align on that.
I'm filing http://rubyspec.org/projects/rubyspec/issues/show?id=226 for
this. Let's see how it goes.

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:25, Charles Oliver Nutter <he...@headius.com>wrote:

> I doubt it was intentional...I'm sure we're just getting the full raw
> ms time and using that. It may represent a valid behavioral difference
> (i.e. maybe the specified behavior should be only checking seconds)
> but that seems unlikely...
>
> Anyway, I'll leave it in your hands if you guys want to file a bug or not.
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>
> wrote:
> > Alex pointed me to the fact that a.mtime == b.mtime compares values to a
> > unit smaller than a second, while it apparently stops at the second so
> far
> > with MRI.
> > So we stopped doing mtime equality because it was a bad idea, but you
> might
> > want to look into this, if that change was not intended.
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:14, Charles Oliver Nutter <
> headius@headius.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Antoine Toulme <
> antoine@lunar-ocean.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:02, Charles Oliver Nutter
> >> > <he...@headius.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I have not looked at the issues...they don't happen with RJB?
> >> >
> >> > No idea, because win7 and RJB kinda suck.
> >> >>
> >> >> It could
> >> >> be a problem with the way we implement mtime on Windows. Any update
> on
> >> >> this in the past few days? (I was out of town).
> >> >
> >> > We changed the way we test mtime. Instead of doing ==, we now use <
> and
> >> > > to
> >> > avoid races.
> >> > We still have a few failing specs re permissions. No headway on those.
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> We're looking to push JRuby 1.5.1 very soon, so if there's something
> >> >> to fix we need to get it in.
> >> >
> >> > So far nothing to report.
> >>
> >> If you can narrow it down to something specific broken in JRuby, we'll
> >> gladly fix it.
> >>
> >> - Charlie
> >
> >
>

Re: Update on JRuby 1.5 support

[Charles Oliver Nutter <he...@headius.com>]

I doubt it was intentional...I'm sure we're just getting the full raw
ms time and using that. It may represent a valid behavioral difference
(i.e. maybe the specified behavior should be only checking seconds)
but that seems unlikely...

Anyway, I'll leave it in your hands if you guys want to file a bug or not.

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com> wrote:
> Alex pointed me to the fact that a.mtime == b.mtime compares values to a
> unit smaller than a second, while it apparently stops at the second so far
> with MRI.
> So we stopped doing mtime equality because it was a bad idea, but you might
> want to look into this, if that change was not intended.
>
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:14, Charles Oliver Nutter <he...@headius.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:02, Charles Oliver Nutter
>> > <he...@headius.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> I have not looked at the issues...they don't happen with RJB?
>> >
>> > No idea, because win7 and RJB kinda suck.
>> >>
>> >> It could
>> >> be a problem with the way we implement mtime on Windows. Any update on
>> >> this in the past few days? (I was out of town).
>> >
>> > We changed the way we test mtime. Instead of doing ==, we now use < and
>> > > to
>> > avoid races.
>> > We still have a few failing specs re permissions. No headway on those.
>> >
>> >>
>> >> We're looking to push JRuby 1.5.1 very soon, so if there's something
>> >> to fix we need to get it in.
>> >
>> > So far nothing to report.
>>
>> If you can narrow it down to something specific broken in JRuby, we'll
>> gladly fix it.
>>
>> - Charlie
>
>

Re: Update on JRuby 1.5 support

[Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>]

Alex pointed me to the fact that a.mtime == b.mtime compares values to a
unit smaller than a second, while it apparently stops at the second so far
with MRI.
So we stopped doing mtime equality because it was a bad idea, but you might
want to look into this, if that change was not intended.


On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:14, Charles Oliver Nutter <he...@headius.com>wrote:

> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:02, Charles Oliver Nutter <
> headius@headius.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I have not looked at the issues...they don't happen with RJB?
> >
> > No idea, because win7 and RJB kinda suck.
> >>
> >> It could
> >> be a problem with the way we implement mtime on Windows. Any update on
> >> this in the past few days? (I was out of town).
> >
> > We changed the way we test mtime. Instead of doing ==, we now use < and >
> to
> > avoid races.
> > We still have a few failing specs re permissions. No headway on those.
> >
> >>
> >> We're looking to push JRuby 1.5.1 very soon, so if there's something
> >> to fix we need to get it in.
> >
> > So far nothing to report.
>
> If you can narrow it down to something specific broken in JRuby, we'll
> gladly fix it.
>
> - Charlie
>

Re: Update on JRuby 1.5 support

[Charles Oliver Nutter <he...@headius.com>]

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 5:06 PM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:02, Charles Oliver Nutter <he...@headius.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I have not looked at the issues...they don't happen with RJB?
>
> No idea, because win7 and RJB kinda suck.
>>
>> It could
>> be a problem with the way we implement mtime on Windows. Any update on
>> this in the past few days? (I was out of town).
>
> We changed the way we test mtime. Instead of doing ==, we now use < and > to
> avoid races.
> We still have a few failing specs re permissions. No headway on those.
>
>>
>> We're looking to push JRuby 1.5.1 very soon, so if there's something
>> to fix we need to get it in.
>
> So far nothing to report.

If you can narrow it down to something specific broken in JRuby, we'll
gladly fix it.

- Charlie

Re: Update on JRuby 1.5 support

[Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>]

On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:02, Charles Oliver Nutter <he...@headius.com>wrote:

> I have not looked at the issues...they don't happen with RJB?

No idea, because win7 and RJB kinda suck.

> It could
> be a problem with the way we implement mtime on Windows. Any update on
> this in the past few days? (I was out of town).
>
We changed the way we test mtime. Instead of doing ==, we now use < and > to
avoid races.
We still have a few failing specs re permissions. No headway on those.


>
> We're looking to push JRuby 1.5.1 very soon, so if there's something
> to fix we need to get it in.
>
So far nothing to report.

>
> On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>
> wrote:
> > I commented on BUILDR-443. I am not sure the bugs with mtime we have over
> > Windows 7 are particularly relevant to JRuby (but I could not get RJB to
> > behave otherwise so).
> >
> > On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 23:43, Charles Oliver Nutter <
> headius@headius.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> It's a very long log here...if you can reduce it to a few specific
> >> cases it would help. I wouldn't be surprised if it were something
> >> reasonably simple, but it's buried in a very large file :)
> >>
> >> - Charlie
> >>
> >> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Antoine Toulme <
> antoine@lunar-ocean.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Good news!
> >> >
> >> > We got all specs pass on JRuby 1.5. They had a bug, full story on
> >> > BUILDR-441.
> >> >
> >> > Bad news!
> >> >
> >> > We still have some specs not passing with JRuby 1.5 and Windows 7:
> >> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-443
> >> >
> >> > Good news!
> >> >
> >> > We're going to get them pass before you know it.
> >> >
> >> > @headius: let me know when we can look at it together. Probably next
> >> > week
> >> > for me.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Antoine
> >> >
> >
> >
>

Re: Update on JRuby 1.5 support

[Charles Oliver Nutter <he...@headius.com>]

I have not looked at the issues...they don't happen with RJB? It could
be a problem with the way we implement mtime on Windows. Any update on
this in the past few days? (I was out of town).

We're looking to push JRuby 1.5.1 very soon, so if there's something
to fix we need to get it in.

On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com> wrote:
> I commented on BUILDR-443. I am not sure the bugs with mtime we have over
> Windows 7 are particularly relevant to JRuby (but I could not get RJB to
> behave otherwise so).
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 23:43, Charles Oliver Nutter <he...@headius.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> It's a very long log here...if you can reduce it to a few specific
>> cases it would help. I wouldn't be surprised if it were something
>> reasonably simple, but it's buried in a very large file :)
>>
>> - Charlie
>>
>> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Good news!
>> >
>> > We got all specs pass on JRuby 1.5. They had a bug, full story on
>> > BUILDR-441.
>> >
>> > Bad news!
>> >
>> > We still have some specs not passing with JRuby 1.5 and Windows 7:
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-443
>> >
>> > Good news!
>> >
>> > We're going to get them pass before you know it.
>> >
>> > @headius: let me know when we can look at it together. Probably next
>> > week
>> > for me.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > Antoine
>> >
>
>

Re: Update on JRuby 1.5 support

[Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>]

I commented on BUILDR-443. I am not sure the bugs with mtime we have over
Windows 7 are particularly relevant to JRuby (but I could not get RJB to
behave otherwise so).

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 23:43, Charles Oliver Nutter <he...@headius.com>wrote:

> It's a very long log here...if you can reduce it to a few specific
> cases it would help. I wouldn't be surprised if it were something
> reasonably simple, but it's buried in a very large file :)
>
> - Charlie
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>
> wrote:
> > Good news!
> >
> > We got all specs pass on JRuby 1.5. They had a bug, full story on
> > BUILDR-441.
> >
> > Bad news!
> >
> > We still have some specs not passing with JRuby 1.5 and Windows 7:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-443
> >
> > Good news!
> >
> > We're going to get them pass before you know it.
> >
> > @headius: let me know when we can look at it together. Probably next week
> > for me.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Antoine
> >
>

Re: Update on JRuby 1.5 support

[Charles Oliver Nutter <he...@headius.com>]

It's a very long log here...if you can reduce it to a few specific
cases it would help. I wouldn't be surprised if it were something
reasonably simple, but it's buried in a very large file :)

- Charlie

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com> wrote:
> Good news!
>
> We got all specs pass on JRuby 1.5. They had a bug, full story on
> BUILDR-441.
>
> Bad news!
>
> We still have some specs not passing with JRuby 1.5 and Windows 7:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-443
>
> Good news!
>
> We're going to get them pass before you know it.
>
> @headius: let me know when we can look at it together. Probably next week
> for me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Antoine
>

Re: Update on JRuby 1.5 support

[Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>]

Yep. Charles (headius) did most of the work btw.

I'll try to isolate issues in Windows 7 some more - I won't have access to
it this week-end.

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 13:51, Daniel Spiewak <dj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Awesome work!  I saw the flurry of activity and I wish I could have been a
> part of it.  If I get some time this weekend, I'll try to tackle some of the
> Windows 7 failures.
>
> Daniel
>
>
> On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>wrote:
>
>> Good news!
>>
>> We got all specs pass on JRuby 1.5. They had a bug, full story on
>> BUILDR-441.
>>
>> Bad news!
>>
>> We still have some specs not passing with JRuby 1.5 and Windows 7:
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-443
>>
>> Good news!
>>
>> We're going to get them pass before you know it.
>>
>> @headius: let me know when we can look at it together. Probably next week
>> for me.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>
>

Re: Update on JRuby 1.5 support

[Daniel Spiewak <dj...@gmail.com>]

Awesome work!  I saw the flurry of activity and I wish I could have been a
part of it.  If I get some time this weekend, I'll try to tackle some of the
Windows 7 failures.

Daniel

On Fri, May 21, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>wrote:

> Good news!
>
> We got all specs pass on JRuby 1.5. They had a bug, full story on
> BUILDR-441.
>
> Bad news!
>
> We still have some specs not passing with JRuby 1.5 and Windows 7:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/BUILDR-443
>
> Good news!
>
> We're going to get them pass before you know it.
>
> @headius: let me know when we can look at it together. Probably next week
> for me.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Antoine
>