I agree. I think more people are affected by issues in 1.3.5 today than would potentially be affected with 1.4.0 as it is. The way forward is to release 1.4.0 and address issues promptly as they are reported. We can't keep pushing 1.4.0 out.
alex On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 on cutting the release now, fixing later. Again, remember that there > are > very few bugs which are *more* critical than our outstanding rubygems issue > with 1.3.5. > > Daniel > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Antoine Toulme <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > You mean, the patch you attached to the dev list. > > I have learnt first hand that patches have harmful side effects. > > I'm not sure I want to change anything there. I am not sure having a > cycle > > because you try to call things in the wrong order should be corrected. > > The patch is not attached to a Jira bug, so I lost track of it. > > > > And most important, I'm out of juice. I need this release out now or I'll > > give up. That's me drawing the line in the sand. > > > > On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 09:15, Pepijn Van Eeckhoudt < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 17/6/2010 17:38, Antoine Toulme wrote: > > > > > >> I think we now have a good understanding of the problem. Mainly, that > > this > > >> is not a good or valid approach. > > >> Rhett pointed at a workaround ; I guess that using an enhance block > > would > > >> also have fixed the problem. > > >> > > > But since there is a patch that solves the problem (at least in the > short > > > term) and doesn't break the current specs; why not include this in the > > 1.4 > > > release? > > > > > > Pepijn > > > > > >
