At least to me, it seems better to push of a release until we can
safely claim 4.0. It seems like we almost have too much in the way of
new features (with the shell support and all) for a point release, but
not quite enough for a full jump.
With that said, I recognize there are people
In my mind, the main drivers for this minor release were:
- making Buildr work out-of-the-box on Snow Leopard (RJB upgrade)
- getting a bunch of bug fixes out, not just for end users but also for
3rd party plugins that are now somewhat tied to Buildr's release cycles
(e.g.
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Daniel Spiewak djspie...@gmail.com wrote:
At least to me, it seems better to push of a release until we can safely
claim 4.0. It seems like we almost have too much in the way of new features
(with the shell support and all) for a point release, but not quite
Hi Alex,
On Oct 5, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Alex Boisvert wrote:
We're voting on the source distributions available here:
http://people.apache.org/~boisvert/buildr/1.3.5/dist/
Specifically:
http://people.apache.org/~boisvert/buildr/1.3.5/dist/buildr-1.3.5.tgz
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Rhett Sutphin rh...@detailedbalance.netwrote:
Does an up vote on these endorse
http://people.apache.org/~boisvert/buildr/1.3.5/dist/buildr-1.3.5.gemhttp://people.apache.org/%7Eboisvert/buildr/1.3.5/dist/buildr-1.3.5.gem
? I ask because it is missing the
Forgot to +1 for the record.
Assaf
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Assaf Arkin as...@labnotes.org wrote:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Daniel Spiewak djspie...@gmail.comwrote:
At least to me, it seems better to push of a release until we can safely
claim 4.0. It seems like we almost
+1 on the source package, then.
Rhett
On Oct 6, 2009, at 10:01 PM, Alex Boisvert wrote:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Rhett Sutphin rh...@detailedbalance.net
wrote:
Does an up vote on these endorse
http://people.apache.org/~boisvert/buildr/1.3.5/dist/
