You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@buildr.apache.org by Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com> on 2010/06/15 23:34:45 UTC
Re: Buildr 1.4.0 RC1
Daniel, on this, here is a tidbit of wisdom from Assaf:
In ~/.ssh/config, add:
Host people.apache.org
User <your apache user name>
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 21:00, Daniel Spiewak <dj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You better do it. I am not privy to the words of power required to cut a
> release. That and my Apache username is different from my local username,
> so the release task doesn't work for me. :-)
>
> Daniel
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Antoine Toulme <antoine@lunar-ocean.com
> >wrote:
>
> > I'll try to cut RC2 now, unless you're on it ?
> >
> > Thanks Daniel!
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 19:46, Daniel Spiewak <dj...@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 <dj...@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
> > > >>> > >
> > > >>> >
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: Buildr 1.4.0 RC1
Posted by Daniel Spiewak <dj...@gmail.com>.
Interesting! I never knew that ssh could do that.
Daniel
On Jun 15, 2010, at 4:35 PM, "Antoine Toulme" <antoine@lunar-
ocean.com> wrote:
> Daniel, on this, here is a tidbit of wisdom from Assaf:
> In ~/.ssh/config, add:
>
> Host people.apache.org
> User <your apache user name>
>
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 21:00, Daniel Spiewak <dj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> You better do it. I am not privy to the words of power required to
>> cut a
>> release. That and my Apache username is different from my local
>> username,
>> so the release task doesn't work for me. :-)
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Antoine Toulme <antoine@lunar-ocean.com
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> I'll try to cut RC2 now, unless you're on it ?
>>>
>>> Thanks Daniel!
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 19:46, Daniel Spiewak <dj...@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
>>>>> <dj...@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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>