You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@buildr.apache.org by Tal Rotbart <re...@gmail.com> on 2010/06/02 02:26:00 UTC
Re: Update on JRuby 1.5 support
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
Posted by 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
Posted by 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
Posted by 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
Posted by 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
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
>