Re: Release?

2009-02-12 Thread Aníbal Rojas
+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

Re: Release?

2009-02-12 Thread Magnus Holm
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

Re: Release?

2009-02-12 Thread Eric Mill
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

Re: Release?

2009-02-12 Thread Julik Tarkhanov
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

Re: Release?

2009-02-12 Thread Julik Tarkhanov
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

Re: Release?

2009-02-12 Thread zimbatm
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 ___