Done: http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=3180
Still some updating to do on the website. On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 16:52, Antoine Toulme <[email protected]>wrote: > Gems have been pushed to rubygems. I'll try uploading the all-in-one > package to rubyforge. > > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:46, Antoine Toulme <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I uploaded the new website (see the tagline change ?). I have yet to do a >> bit of updating to show off our latest release. Any help in updating the >> downloads and the what's new section is much appreciated. >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:17, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Thanks again, Antoine, for all your hard work on this release! >>> >>> Daniel >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Antoine Toulme <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> The vote passed with 3 bindings +1 and 3 non-binding +1. >>>> >>>> Thanks everybody for your efforts on pushing this release out! >>>> >>>> I'll update the website and will push the gems to rubygems in the coming >>>> days. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Antoine >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:28, Pepijn Van Eeckhoudt < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> > I have to agree that issues with thr current 1.3.5 release are morr of >>>> a >>>> > showstopper for my projects as well. Having to apply manual patches in >>>> order >>>> > to get things working on JRuby has held back our internal buildr >>>> experiments >>>> > for quite some time now. >>>> > >>>> > The patch is attached to the Jira issue Rhett created BTW. >>>> > >>>> > Pepijn >>>> > >>>> > Op 17-jun-2010 om 18:51 heeft Alex Boisvert <[email protected]> >>>> het >>>> > volgende geschreven:\ >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > 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 >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >
