+1 Little wheels, and down the hill :-)
Aníbal Rojas
http://hasmanydevelopers.com
http://rubycorner.com
http://anibal.rojas.com.ve
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 1:30 AM, Jenna Fox wrote:
> Yay little wheels!
>
> Okay, first task! Whatever Magnus has right now, lets
Okay, let's roll!
I did some testing with `git checkout` and `diff -r` and figured out that
the 1.5.180 gem is revision 173 in the Git repo... Weird stuff...
However, let's focus on the future! First of all, we need some plan on how
we should name the releases. What about keeping the rev-number in
I don't genuinely enjoy using any issue/bug trackers (who does?), but
Lighthouse is my least among evils. It's a lot nicer than Trac,
anyway. What do you guys think?
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:40 AM, Magnus Holm wrote:
> Okay, let's roll!
> I did some testing with `git checkout` and `diff -r` and
On Feb 12, 2009, at 6:56 PM, Eric Mill wrote:
I don't genuinely enjoy using any issue/bug trackers (who does?), but
Lighthouse is my least among evils. It's a lot nicer than Trac,
anyway. What do you guys think?
I rather like the oldskool idea of the bugtracker being powered by
Camping its
On Feb 12, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Magnus Holm wrote:
However, let's focus on the future! First of all, we need some plan
on how we should name the releases.
Basic. http://www.rubygems.org/read/chapter/7
Knowing how much changed on 2.0 I expect that some things are very
different and analogous t
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 8:42 PM, Julik Tarkhanov
wrote:
> Why not just 2.0.0 with a tag, then 2.0.1 with a tag and so on? Then you
> also know everytime you release something you have a tag for it. And things
> like rebases will not ruin your schemes
+1
___
6 matches
Mail list logo