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 2010/07/02 08:14:23 UTC
[VOTE] Buildr 1.4.1 release
We're voting on the source distributions available here:
http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/
Specifically:
http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz
http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip
The documentation generated for this release is available here:
http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/
http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf
The official specification against which this release was tested:
http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html
Test coverage report:
http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/coverage/index.html
The following changes were made since 1.4.0:
* Added: BUILDR-420 Support external compiler
* Added: BUILDR-425 Specify dev dependencies in .gemspec
* Change: BUILDR-459 Update gemspec to accept json_pure ~> 1.4.3
* Fixed: BUILDR-455 cc_spec.rb l 160 depends on time and thus fails
intermittently
* Fixed: BUILDR-461 Packages with different ids collide
* Fixed: BUILDR-439 "The command line is too long" when running TestNG
tests
* Fixed: BUILDR-463 Setting a system property in the buildfile causes a
NoClassDefFoundError
This vote is opened for 72h!
Thanks,
Antoine
Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.4.1 release
Posted by Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>.
The vote is closed. Thanks all! We have a new release!
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:23, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>wrote:
> We have 3 binding +1s, 0 +0s, 0 -1s.
>
> We have 1 non-binding +1.
>
> Since the 4th of July weekend impacted this vote, let's keep it open till
> tomorrow morning so that more testing can be done on it.
>
> I will close the vote then.
>
> Thanks all for your participation!
>
> Antoine
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 08:58, Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> +1 for the release; though I won't be able to test it until Tuesday.
>>
>> The rationale for such quick release is to resolve an install issue
>> with json-pure dependency. And we agreed to handle install issues
>> more promptly than in the past.
>>
>> alex
>>
>> On Friday, July 2, 2010, Rhett Sutphin <rh...@detailedbalance.net> wrote:
>> > Hi Antoine,
>> >
>> > On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Antoine Toulme wrote:
>> >
>> >> Thanks Daniel.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, Alex said we should a maintenance release in a couple of weeks
>> after
>> >> 1.4.
>> >>
>> >> I would also like to start delivering releases on time!
>> >>
>> >> Rhett, thanks for finding out that problem. I will apply your approach
>> for
>> >> 1.4.2. I suggest we vote this release and I'll just bump the version
>> when I
>> >> run the release task. Sorry for that oversight.
>> >
>> > Sounds good. A non-binding +1 from me, then.
>> >
>> > Rhett
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 09:51, Daniel Spiewak <dj...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Alrighty then. I'm generally in favor of rapid releases myself, I
>> just
>> >>> wanted to be sure that we weren't rushing things.
>> >>>
>> >>> I vote +1 on the release. Oh and Antoine, don't think your hard work
>> on
>> >>> this release has gone unnoticed. I saw all of that JIRA and SVN
>> activity!
>> >>>
>> >>> Daniel
>> >>>
>> >>> On Jul 2, 2010, at 11:47 AM, "Rhett Sutphin" <
>> rhett@detailedbalance.net>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> Hi Daniel,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Jul 2, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Daniel Spiewak wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Doesn't it seem just a little quick to be pushing out 1.4.1? I
>> don't
>> >>> object
>> >>>>> too strenuously, but it just seems a bit weird.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I'm in favor of it. Frequent releases let the project adapt to
>> changing
>> >>> circumstances and fix critical bugs before they scare off potential
>> new
>> >>> adopters. Many successful projects have frequent releases -- one I
>> can
>> >>> think of in particular is hudson, which has a release every week.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So long as the changes are well documented and there's a good
>> (passing)
>> >>> test suite (both of which are the case with buildr), there's no need
>> for
>> >>> months to elapse between releases.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Rhett
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Daniel
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Antoine Toulme <
>> antoine@lunar-ocean.com
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> We're voting on the source distributions available here:
>> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/<
>> >>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Specifically:
>> >>>>>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz<
>> >>>
>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz>
>> >>>>>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip<
>> >>>
>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The documentation generated for this release is available here:
>> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/<
>> >>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/>
>> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf<
>> >>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> The official specification against which this release was tested:
>> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html<
>> >>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> Test coverage report:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>> http://people.apache.org/~ <
>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/coverage/index.html>
>>
>
>
Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.4.1 release
Posted by Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>.
We have 3 binding +1s, 0 +0s, 0 -1s.
We have 1 non-binding +1.
Since the 4th of July weekend impacted this vote, let's keep it open till
tomorrow morning so that more testing can be done on it.
I will close the vote then.
Thanks all for your participation!
Antoine
On Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 08:58, Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for the release; though I won't be able to test it until Tuesday.
>
> The rationale for such quick release is to resolve an install issue
> with json-pure dependency. And we agreed to handle install issues
> more promptly than in the past.
>
> alex
>
> On Friday, July 2, 2010, Rhett Sutphin <rh...@detailedbalance.net> wrote:
> > Hi Antoine,
> >
> > On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Antoine Toulme wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks Daniel.
> >>
> >> Yes, Alex said we should a maintenance release in a couple of weeks
> after
> >> 1.4.
> >>
> >> I would also like to start delivering releases on time!
> >>
> >> Rhett, thanks for finding out that problem. I will apply your approach
> for
> >> 1.4.2. I suggest we vote this release and I'll just bump the version
> when I
> >> run the release task. Sorry for that oversight.
> >
> > Sounds good. A non-binding +1 from me, then.
> >
> > Rhett
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 09:51, Daniel Spiewak <dj...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Alrighty then. I'm generally in favor of rapid releases myself, I just
> >>> wanted to be sure that we weren't rushing things.
> >>>
> >>> I vote +1 on the release. Oh and Antoine, don't think your hard work
> on
> >>> this release has gone unnoticed. I saw all of that JIRA and SVN
> activity!
> >>>
> >>> Daniel
> >>>
> >>> On Jul 2, 2010, at 11:47 AM, "Rhett Sutphin" <
> rhett@detailedbalance.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi Daniel,
> >>>>
> >>>> On Jul 2, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Daniel Spiewak wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Doesn't it seem just a little quick to be pushing out 1.4.1? I don't
> >>> object
> >>>>> too strenuously, but it just seems a bit weird.
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm in favor of it. Frequent releases let the project adapt to
> changing
> >>> circumstances and fix critical bugs before they scare off potential new
> >>> adopters. Many successful projects have frequent releases -- one I can
> >>> think of in particular is hudson, which has a release every week.
> >>>>
> >>>> So long as the changes are well documented and there's a good
> (passing)
> >>> test suite (both of which are the case with buildr), there's no need
> for
> >>> months to elapse between releases.
> >>>>
> >>>> Rhett
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Daniel
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Antoine Toulme <
> antoine@lunar-ocean.com
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> We're voting on the source distributions available here:
> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/<
> >>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Specifically:
> >>>>>>
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz<
> >>>
> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz>
> >>>>>>
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip<
> >>>
> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The documentation generated for this release is available here:
> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/<
> >>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/>
> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf<
> >>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The official specification against which this release was tested:
> >>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html<
> >>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Test coverage report:
> >>>>>>
> >>> http://people.apache.org/~ <
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/coverage/index.html>
>
Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.4.1 release
Posted by Alex Boisvert <al...@gmail.com>.
+1 for the release; though I won't be able to test it until Tuesday.
The rationale for such quick release is to resolve an install issue
with json-pure dependency. And we agreed to handle install issues
more promptly than in the past.
alex
On Friday, July 2, 2010, Rhett Sutphin <rh...@detailedbalance.net> wrote:
> Hi Antoine,
>
> On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Antoine Toulme wrote:
>
>> Thanks Daniel.
>>
>> Yes, Alex said we should a maintenance release in a couple of weeks after
>> 1.4.
>>
>> I would also like to start delivering releases on time!
>>
>> Rhett, thanks for finding out that problem. I will apply your approach for
>> 1.4.2. I suggest we vote this release and I'll just bump the version when I
>> run the release task. Sorry for that oversight.
>
> Sounds good. A non-binding +1 from me, then.
>
> Rhett
>
>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 09:51, Daniel Spiewak <dj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Alrighty then. I'm generally in favor of rapid releases myself, I just
>>> wanted to be sure that we weren't rushing things.
>>>
>>> I vote +1 on the release. Oh and Antoine, don't think your hard work on
>>> this release has gone unnoticed. I saw all of that JIRA and SVN activity!
>>>
>>> Daniel
>>>
>>> On Jul 2, 2010, at 11:47 AM, "Rhett Sutphin" <rh...@detailedbalance.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 2, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Daniel Spiewak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't it seem just a little quick to be pushing out 1.4.1? I don't
>>> object
>>>>> too strenuously, but it just seems a bit weird.
>>>>
>>>> I'm in favor of it. Frequent releases let the project adapt to changing
>>> circumstances and fix critical bugs before they scare off potential new
>>> adopters. Many successful projects have frequent releases -- one I can
>>> think of in particular is hudson, which has a release every week.
>>>>
>>>> So long as the changes are well documented and there's a good (passing)
>>> test suite (both of which are the case with buildr), there's no need for
>>> months to elapse between releases.
>>>>
>>>> Rhett
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Daniel
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Antoine Toulme <antoine@lunar-ocean.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We're voting on the source distributions available here:
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/<
>>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Specifically:
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz<
>>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz>
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip<
>>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The documentation generated for this release is available here:
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/<
>>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/>
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf<
>>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The official specification against which this release was tested:
>>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html<
>>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Test coverage report:
>>>>>>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~ <http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/coverage/index.html>
Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.4.1 release
Posted by Rhett Sutphin <rh...@detailedbalance.net>.
Hi Antoine,
On Jul 2, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Antoine Toulme wrote:
> Thanks Daniel.
>
> Yes, Alex said we should a maintenance release in a couple of weeks after
> 1.4.
>
> I would also like to start delivering releases on time!
>
> Rhett, thanks for finding out that problem. I will apply your approach for
> 1.4.2. I suggest we vote this release and I'll just bump the version when I
> run the release task. Sorry for that oversight.
Sounds good. A non-binding +1 from me, then.
Rhett
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 09:51, Daniel Spiewak <dj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Alrighty then. I'm generally in favor of rapid releases myself, I just
>> wanted to be sure that we weren't rushing things.
>>
>> I vote +1 on the release. Oh and Antoine, don't think your hard work on
>> this release has gone unnoticed. I saw all of that JIRA and SVN activity!
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> On Jul 2, 2010, at 11:47 AM, "Rhett Sutphin" <rh...@detailedbalance.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Daniel,
>>>
>>> On Jul 2, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Daniel Spiewak wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doesn't it seem just a little quick to be pushing out 1.4.1? I don't
>> object
>>>> too strenuously, but it just seems a bit weird.
>>>
>>> I'm in favor of it. Frequent releases let the project adapt to changing
>> circumstances and fix critical bugs before they scare off potential new
>> adopters. Many successful projects have frequent releases -- one I can
>> think of in particular is hudson, which has a release every week.
>>>
>>> So long as the changes are well documented and there's a good (passing)
>> test suite (both of which are the case with buildr), there's no need for
>> months to elapse between releases.
>>>
>>> Rhett
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Daniel
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Antoine Toulme <antoine@lunar-ocean.com
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> We're voting on the source distributions available here:
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/<
>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Specifically:
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz<
>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip<
>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip>
>>>>>
>>>>> The documentation generated for this release is available here:
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/<
>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/>
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf<
>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf>
>>>>>
>>>>> The official specification against which this release was tested:
>>>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html<
>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html>
>>>>>
>>>>> Test coverage report:
>>>>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/coverage/index.html<
>> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/coverage/index.html
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The following changes were made since 1.4.0:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Added: BUILDR-420 Support external compiler
>>>>> * Added: BUILDR-425 Specify dev dependencies in .gemspec
>>>>> * Change: BUILDR-459 Update gemspec to accept json_pure ~> 1.4.3
>>>>> * Fixed: BUILDR-455 cc_spec.rb l 160 depends on time and thus fails
>>>>> intermittently
>>>>> * Fixed: BUILDR-461 Packages with different ids collide
>>>>> * Fixed: BUILDR-439 "The command line is too long" when running TestNG
>>>>> tests
>>>>> * Fixed: BUILDR-463 Setting a system property in the buildfile causes
>> a
>>>>> NoClassDefFoundError
>>>>>
>>>>> This vote is opened for 72h!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Antoine
>>>>>
>>>
>>
Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.4.1 release
Posted by Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>.
Thanks Daniel.
Yes, Alex said we should a maintenance release in a couple of weeks after
1.4.
I would also like to start delivering releases on time!
Rhett, thanks for finding out that problem. I will apply your approach for
1.4.2. I suggest we vote this release and I'll just bump the version when I
run the release task. Sorry for that oversight.
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 09:51, Daniel Spiewak <dj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alrighty then. I'm generally in favor of rapid releases myself, I just
> wanted to be sure that we weren't rushing things.
>
> I vote +1 on the release. Oh and Antoine, don't think your hard work on
> this release has gone unnoticed. I saw all of that JIRA and SVN activity!
>
> Daniel
>
> On Jul 2, 2010, at 11:47 AM, "Rhett Sutphin" <rh...@detailedbalance.net>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > On Jul 2, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Daniel Spiewak wrote:
> >
> >> Doesn't it seem just a little quick to be pushing out 1.4.1? I don't
> object
> >> too strenuously, but it just seems a bit weird.
> >
> > I'm in favor of it. Frequent releases let the project adapt to changing
> circumstances and fix critical bugs before they scare off potential new
> adopters. Many successful projects have frequent releases -- one I can
> think of in particular is hudson, which has a release every week.
> >
> > So long as the changes are well documented and there's a good (passing)
> test suite (both of which are the case with buildr), there's no need for
> months to elapse between releases.
> >
> > Rhett
> >
> >>
> >> Daniel
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Antoine Toulme <antoine@lunar-ocean.com
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> We're voting on the source distributions available here:
> >>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/<
> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/>
> >>>
> >>> Specifically:
> >>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz<
> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz>
> >>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip<
> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip>
> >>>
> >>> The documentation generated for this release is available here:
> >>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/<
> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/>
> >>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf<
> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf>
> >>>
> >>> The official specification against which this release was tested:
> >>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html<
> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html>
> >>>
> >>> Test coverage report:
> >>>
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/coverage/index.html<
> http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/coverage/index.html
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The following changes were made since 1.4.0:
> >>>
> >>> * Added: BUILDR-420 Support external compiler
> >>> * Added: BUILDR-425 Specify dev dependencies in .gemspec
> >>> * Change: BUILDR-459 Update gemspec to accept json_pure ~> 1.4.3
> >>> * Fixed: BUILDR-455 cc_spec.rb l 160 depends on time and thus fails
> >>> intermittently
> >>> * Fixed: BUILDR-461 Packages with different ids collide
> >>> * Fixed: BUILDR-439 "The command line is too long" when running TestNG
> >>> tests
> >>> * Fixed: BUILDR-463 Setting a system property in the buildfile causes
> a
> >>> NoClassDefFoundError
> >>>
> >>> This vote is opened for 72h!
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Antoine
> >>>
> >
>
Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.4.1 release
Posted by Daniel Spiewak <dj...@gmail.com>.
Alrighty then. I'm generally in favor of rapid releases myself, I just wanted to be sure that we weren't rushing things.
I vote +1 on the release. Oh and Antoine, don't think your hard work on this release has gone unnoticed. I saw all of that JIRA and SVN activity!
Daniel
On Jul 2, 2010, at 11:47 AM, "Rhett Sutphin" <rh...@detailedbalance.net> wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Jul 2, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Daniel Spiewak wrote:
>
>> Doesn't it seem just a little quick to be pushing out 1.4.1? I don't object
>> too strenuously, but it just seems a bit weird.
>
> I'm in favor of it. Frequent releases let the project adapt to changing circumstances and fix critical bugs before they scare off potential new adopters. Many successful projects have frequent releases -- one I can think of in particular is hudson, which has a release every week.
>
> So long as the changes are well documented and there's a good (passing) test suite (both of which are the case with buildr), there's no need for months to elapse between releases.
>
> Rhett
>
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>wrote:
>>
>>> We're voting on the source distributions available here:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/>
>>>
>>> Specifically:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip>
>>>
>>> The documentation generated for this release is available here:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/>
>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf>
>>>
>>> The official specification against which this release was tested:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html>
>>>
>>> Test coverage report:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/coverage/index.html<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/coverage/index.html>
>>>
>>>
>>> The following changes were made since 1.4.0:
>>>
>>> * Added: BUILDR-420 Support external compiler
>>> * Added: BUILDR-425 Specify dev dependencies in .gemspec
>>> * Change: BUILDR-459 Update gemspec to accept json_pure ~> 1.4.3
>>> * Fixed: BUILDR-455 cc_spec.rb l 160 depends on time and thus fails
>>> intermittently
>>> * Fixed: BUILDR-461 Packages with different ids collide
>>> * Fixed: BUILDR-439 "The command line is too long" when running TestNG
>>> tests
>>> * Fixed: BUILDR-463 Setting a system property in the buildfile causes a
>>> NoClassDefFoundError
>>>
>>> This vote is opened for 72h!
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Antoine
>>>
>
Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.4.1 release
Posted by Rhett Sutphin <rh...@detailedbalance.net>.
Hi Daniel,
On Jul 2, 2010, at 9:32 AM, Daniel Spiewak wrote:
> Doesn't it seem just a little quick to be pushing out 1.4.1? I don't object
> too strenuously, but it just seems a bit weird.
I'm in favor of it. Frequent releases let the project adapt to changing circumstances and fix critical bugs before they scare off potential new adopters. Many successful projects have frequent releases -- one I can think of in particular is hudson, which has a release every week.
So long as the changes are well documented and there's a good (passing) test suite (both of which are the case with buildr), there's no need for months to elapse between releases.
Rhett
>
> Daniel
>
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>wrote:
>
>> We're voting on the source distributions available here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/>
>>
>> Specifically:
>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz>
>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip>
>>
>> The documentation generated for this release is available here:
>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/>
>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf>
>>
>> The official specification against which this release was tested:
>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html>
>>
>> Test coverage report:
>> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/coverage/index.html<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/coverage/index.html>
>>
>>
>> The following changes were made since 1.4.0:
>>
>> * Added: BUILDR-420 Support external compiler
>> * Added: BUILDR-425 Specify dev dependencies in .gemspec
>> * Change: BUILDR-459 Update gemspec to accept json_pure ~> 1.4.3
>> * Fixed: BUILDR-455 cc_spec.rb l 160 depends on time and thus fails
>> intermittently
>> * Fixed: BUILDR-461 Packages with different ids collide
>> * Fixed: BUILDR-439 "The command line is too long" when running TestNG
>> tests
>> * Fixed: BUILDR-463 Setting a system property in the buildfile causes a
>> NoClassDefFoundError
>>
>> This vote is opened for 72h!
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Antoine
>>
Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.4.1 release
Posted by Daniel Spiewak <dj...@gmail.com>.
Doesn't it seem just a little quick to be pushing out 1.4.1? I don't object
too strenuously, but it just seems a bit weird.
Daniel
On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 1:14 AM, Antoine Toulme <an...@lunar-ocean.com>wrote:
> We're voting on the source distributions available here:
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/>
>
> Specifically:
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz>
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip>
>
> The documentation generated for this release is available here:
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/>
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf>
>
> The official specification against which this release was tested:
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html>
>
> Test coverage report:
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/coverage/index.html<http://people.apache.org/%7Etoulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/coverage/index.html>
>
>
> The following changes were made since 1.4.0:
>
> * Added: BUILDR-420 Support external compiler
> * Added: BUILDR-425 Specify dev dependencies in .gemspec
> * Change: BUILDR-459 Update gemspec to accept json_pure ~> 1.4.3
> * Fixed: BUILDR-455 cc_spec.rb l 160 depends on time and thus fails
> intermittently
> * Fixed: BUILDR-461 Packages with different ids collide
> * Fixed: BUILDR-439 "The command line is too long" when running TestNG
> tests
> * Fixed: BUILDR-463 Setting a system property in the buildfile causes a
> NoClassDefFoundError
>
> This vote is opened for 72h!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Antoine
>
Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.4.1 release
Posted by Rhett Sutphin <rh...@detailedbalance.net>.
Hi Antoine,
One small problem with this release -- it is misreporting its own version:
$ buildr _1.4.1_ --version
Buildr 1.4.0
(I notice that buildr has its version listed multiple places, which is presumably what led to this oversight. I find that the following technique can DRY up this aspect of ruby gem maintenance:
Put the version constant in its own file:
# lib/buildr/version.rb
module Buildr
VERSION = '1.4.1'
end
Load that file from both the main library file:
# lib/buildr.rb
require 'buildr/version'
# ...
And the gemspec:
# buildr.gemspec
require File.expand_path(__FILE__, '../lib/buildr/version.rb')
Gem::Specification.new do |spec|
spec.name = 'buildr'
spec.version = Buildr::VERSION
# ...
end
)
Otherwise it looks fine to me. I can confirm that BUILDR-463 is fixed. Thanks for the quick turnaround on that one.
Rhett
On Jul 2, 2010, at 1:14 AM, Antoine Toulme wrote:
> We're voting on the source distributions available here:
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/
>
> Specifically:
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.tgz
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/dist/buildr-1.4.1.zip
>
> The documentation generated for this release is available here:
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/buildr.pdf
>
> The official specification against which this release was tested:
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/specs.html
>
> Test coverage report:
> http://people.apache.org/~toulmean/buildr/1.4.1/site/coverage/index.html
>
>
> The following changes were made since 1.4.0:
>
> * Added: BUILDR-420 Support external compiler
> * Added: BUILDR-425 Specify dev dependencies in .gemspec
> * Change: BUILDR-459 Update gemspec to accept json_pure ~> 1.4.3
> * Fixed: BUILDR-455 cc_spec.rb l 160 depends on time and thus fails
> intermittently
> * Fixed: BUILDR-461 Packages with different ids collide
> * Fixed: BUILDR-439 "The command line is too long" when running TestNG
> tests
> * Fixed: BUILDR-463 Setting a system property in the buildfile causes a
> NoClassDefFoundError
>
> This vote is opened for 72h!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Antoine