You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@buildr.apache.org by Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com> on 2011/06/21 20:38:23 UTC
VOTE: Remove JtestR support
As discussed earlier, JtestR integration has become a maintenance burden
that I can no longer sustain in my limited open-source time. In case you
haven't followed, the main issue is that JtestR is only compatible with a
restricted set of dependencies (notably rspec 1.3.0 and only up to JRuby
1.5.4) which conflicts with buildr's own set of dependencies. There is no
plan <http://markmail.org/message/ifjbbh6ppyufvxmi> to upgrade JtestR to
rspec 2.0 and combined with the very few users actually relying on JtestR
means the feature doesn't support its own weight.
VOTE
[ ] +1 Agree to remove JtestR support
[ ] +/- 0 No opinion
[ ] -1 Disagree to remove JTestR support (and propose solution to JtestR
maintenance)
If anybody wants to step up and maintain JtestR integration, I would advise
converting it into a plugin separate from Buildr's core. I believe a
separate release cycle would probably serve users better in any case.
thanks,
alex
Re: VOTE: Remove JtestR support
Posted by Rhett Sutphin <rh...@detailedbalance.net>.
Nonbinding +1 from me. I originally used JTestR when I started using buildr (long ago), but I found that buildr's built-in rspec support was better.
Rhett
On Jun 21, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Alex Boisvert wrote:
> As discussed earlier, JtestR integration has become a maintenance burden
> that I can no longer sustain in my limited open-source time. In case you
> haven't followed, the main issue is that JtestR is only compatible with a
> restricted set of dependencies (notably rspec 1.3.0 and only up to JRuby
> 1.5.4) which conflicts with buildr's own set of dependencies. There is no
> plan <http://markmail.org/message/ifjbbh6ppyufvxmi> to upgrade JtestR to
> rspec 2.0 and combined with the very few users actually relying on JtestR
> means the feature doesn't support its own weight.
>
> VOTE
> [ ] +1 Agree to remove JtestR support
> [ ] +/- 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Disagree to remove JTestR support (and propose solution to JtestR
> maintenance)
>
> If anybody wants to step up and maintain JtestR integration, I would advise
> converting it into a plugin separate from Buildr's core. I believe a
> separate release cycle would probably serve users better in any case.
>
> thanks,
> alex
Re: VOTE: Remove JtestR support
Posted by "Jesus M. Rodriguez" <jm...@gmail.com>.
+1 as I didn't even know JTestR was there.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Chris Samuel <cs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> As discussed earlier, JtestR integration has become a maintenance burden
>> that I can no longer sustain in my limited open-source time. In case you
>> haven't followed, the main issue is that JtestR is only compatible with a
>> restricted set of dependencies (notably rspec 1.3.0 and only up to JRuby
>> 1.5.4) which conflicts with buildr's own set of dependencies. There is no
>> plan <http://markmail.org/message/ifjbbh6ppyufvxmi> to upgrade JtestR to
>> rspec 2.0 and combined with the very few users actually relying on JtestR
>> means the feature doesn't support its own weight.
>>
>> VOTE
>> [ ] +1 Agree to remove JtestR support
>> [ ] +/- 0 No opinion
>> [ ] -1 Disagree to remove JTestR support (and propose solution to JtestR
>> maintenance)
>>
>> If anybody wants to step up and maintain JtestR integration, I would advise
>> converting it into a plugin separate from Buildr's core. I believe a
>> separate release cycle would probably serve users better in any case.
>>
>> thanks,
>> alex
>
Re: VOTE: Remove JtestR support
Posted by Dominic Graefen <do...@gmail.com>.
+1
--
Dominic Graefen
On Wednesday, June 22, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Chris Samuel wrote:
> +1
>
> On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Alex Boisvert <alex.boisvert@gmail.com (mailto:alex.boisvert@gmail.com)> wrote:
>
> > As discussed earlier, JtestR integration has become a maintenance burden
> > that I can no longer sustain in my limited open-source time. In case you
> > haven't followed, the main issue is that JtestR is only compatible with a
> > restricted set of dependencies (notably rspec 1.3.0 and only up to JRuby
> > 1.5.4) which conflicts with buildr's own set of dependencies. There is no
> > plan <http://markmail.org/message/ifjbbh6ppyufvxmi> to upgrade JtestR to
> > rspec 2.0 and combined with the very few users actually relying on JtestR
> > means the feature doesn't support its own weight.
> >
> > VOTE
> > [ ] +1 Agree to remove JtestR support
> > [ ] +/- 0 No opinion
> > [ ] -1 Disagree to remove JTestR support (and propose solution to JtestR
> > maintenance)
> >
> > If anybody wants to step up and maintain JtestR integration, I would advise
> > converting it into a plugin separate from Buildr's core. I believe a
> > separate release cycle would probably serve users better in any case.
> >
> > thanks,
> > alex
Re: VOTE: Remove JtestR support
Posted by Chris Samuel <cs...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As discussed earlier, JtestR integration has become a maintenance burden
> that I can no longer sustain in my limited open-source time. In case you
> haven't followed, the main issue is that JtestR is only compatible with a
> restricted set of dependencies (notably rspec 1.3.0 and only up to JRuby
> 1.5.4) which conflicts with buildr's own set of dependencies. There is no
> plan <http://markmail.org/message/ifjbbh6ppyufvxmi> to upgrade JtestR to
> rspec 2.0 and combined with the very few users actually relying on JtestR
> means the feature doesn't support its own weight.
>
> VOTE
> [ ] +1 Agree to remove JtestR support
> [ ] +/- 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Disagree to remove JTestR support (and propose solution to JtestR
> maintenance)
>
> If anybody wants to step up and maintain JtestR integration, I would advise
> converting it into a plugin separate from Buildr's core. I believe a
> separate release cycle would probably serve users better in any case.
>
> thanks,
> alex
Re: VOTE: Remove JtestR support
Posted by Chris Samuel <cs...@gmail.com>.
+1
On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As discussed earlier, JtestR integration has become a maintenance burden
> that I can no longer sustain in my limited open-source time. In case you
> haven't followed, the main issue is that JtestR is only compatible with a
> restricted set of dependencies (notably rspec 1.3.0 and only up to JRuby
> 1.5.4) which conflicts with buildr's own set of dependencies. There is no
> plan <http://markmail.org/message/ifjbbh6ppyufvxmi> to upgrade JtestR to
> rspec 2.0 and combined with the very few users actually relying on JtestR
> means the feature doesn't support its own weight.
>
> VOTE
> [ ] +1 Agree to remove JtestR support
> [ ] +/- 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Disagree to remove JTestR support (and propose solution to JtestR
> maintenance)
>
> If anybody wants to step up and maintain JtestR integration, I would advise
> converting it into a plugin separate from Buildr's core. I believe a
> separate release cycle would probably serve users better in any case.
>
> thanks,
> alex
Re: VOTE: Remove JtestR support
Posted by Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>.
+1
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 21:47, Peter Donald <pe...@realityforge.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > As discussed earlier, JtestR integration has become a maintenance burden
> > that I can no longer sustain in my limited open-source time. In case you
> > haven't followed, the main issue is that JtestR is only compatible with a
> > restricted set of dependencies (notably rspec 1.3.0 and only up to JRuby
> > 1.5.4) which conflicts with buildr's own set of dependencies. There is
> no
> > plan <http://markmail.org/message/ifjbbh6ppyufvxmi> to upgrade JtestR to
> > rspec 2.0 and combined with the very few users actually relying on JtestR
> > means the feature doesn't support its own weight.
> >
> > VOTE
> > [ ] +1 Agree to remove JtestR support
> > [ ] +/- 0 No opinion
> > [ ] -1 Disagree to remove JTestR support (and propose solution to JtestR
> > maintenance)
>
> +1
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> Peter Donald
>
Re: VOTE: Remove JtestR support
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@realityforge.org>.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 4:38 AM, Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As discussed earlier, JtestR integration has become a maintenance burden
> that I can no longer sustain in my limited open-source time. In case you
> haven't followed, the main issue is that JtestR is only compatible with a
> restricted set of dependencies (notably rspec 1.3.0 and only up to JRuby
> 1.5.4) which conflicts with buildr's own set of dependencies. There is no
> plan <http://markmail.org/message/ifjbbh6ppyufvxmi> to upgrade JtestR to
> rspec 2.0 and combined with the very few users actually relying on JtestR
> means the feature doesn't support its own weight.
>
> VOTE
> [ ] +1 Agree to remove JtestR support
> [ ] +/- 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Disagree to remove JTestR support (and propose solution to JtestR
> maintenance)
+1
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
Re: VOTE: Remove JtestR support
Posted by Lacton <la...@apache.org>.
+1
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As discussed earlier, JtestR integration has become a maintenance burden
> that I can no longer sustain in my limited open-source time. In case you
> haven't followed, the main issue is that JtestR is only compatible with a
> restricted set of dependencies (notably rspec 1.3.0 and only up to JRuby
> 1.5.4) which conflicts with buildr's own set of dependencies. There is no
> plan <http://markmail.org/message/ifjbbh6ppyufvxmi> to upgrade JtestR to
> rspec 2.0 and combined with the very few users actually relying on JtestR
> means the feature doesn't support its own weight.
>
> VOTE
> [ ] +1 Agree to remove JtestR support
> [ ] +/- 0 No opinion
> [ ] -1 Disagree to remove JTestR support (and propose solution to JtestR
> maintenance)
>
> If anybody wants to step up and maintain JtestR integration, I would advise
> converting it into a plugin separate from Buildr's core. I believe a
> separate release cycle would probably serve users better in any case.
>
> thanks,
> alex
>