I added a blurb on what's new for 1.4 on the index. I think we're done with 1.4.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 17:42, Alex Boisvert <[email protected]>wrote: > You may also want to wait 24 hours for the Apache mirrors to sync up (for > the file downloads, eg. source). > > alex > > > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Antoine Toulme > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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 >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>>> >> >>>> >>>> >> >>>> >>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >> > >> > >
