Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release (take 2)

Everything pushed to apache.org and rubyforge.org now. RubyForge release announced here: http://rubyforge.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=35102 Just waiting for apache.org servers to sync up to send official release announcements... alex On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Alex Boisvert wrote: > The

Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release (take 2)

Congratulations for the release and thanks everybody, for your hard work and your dedication! Antoine On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 16:28, Alex Boisvert wrote: > The vote passed with 5 +1 (including 1 non-binding). > > Thanks everyone for trying it and reporting issues. > > I'll get the site and packag

Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release (take 2)

The vote passed with 5 +1 (including 1 non-binding). Thanks everyone for trying it and reporting issues. I'll get the site and packages updated asap. alex On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:02 PM, Alex Boisvert wrote: > We're voting on the source distributions available here: > http://people.apache.or

Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release (take 2)

I've updated the binary packages (now include .class files) and tested fresh install of .gem works on some large real-world projects. The original source packages remain untouched. As an added bonus, I found a machine where rcov doesn't segfault so the updated site has full test coverage reports:

Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release (take 2)

+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 >wrote: Does an up vote on these endorse http://people.apache.org/~boisvert/buildr/1.3.5/dist/ buildr-1.3.5.gem

Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release (take 2)

+1 as well (based on the source package) On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:11 PM, Assaf Arkin wrote: > Forgot to +1 for the record. > Assaf > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Assaf Arkin wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Daniel Spiewak >wrote: > > > >> At least to me, it seems be

Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release (take 2)

Forgot to +1 for the record. Assaf On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 11:22 AM, Assaf Arkin wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Daniel Spiewak 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

Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release (take 2)

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 6:04 PM, Rhett Sutphin wrote: > Does an up vote on these endorse > > http://people.apache.org/~boisvert/buildr/1.3.5/dist/buildr-1.3.5.gem > > ? I ask because it is missing the classes compiled by `rak

Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release (take 2)

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 http://people.apache.org/~boisvert/buildr

Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release (take 2)

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Daniel Spiewak 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 enough > for a full

Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release (take 2)

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. buildr4osgi)

Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release (take 2)

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 actu

Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release (take 2)

On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Daniel Spiewak wrote: > +1 with reservations. I'm not thrilled with the idea of pushing out 1.3.5 > as it is, but I can't refute the reasons to do it. :-) > Why? Assaf > Daniel > > > On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:03 PM, "Alex Boisvert" > wrote: > > We're voting on

Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release (take 2)

+1 with reservations. I'm not thrilled with the idea of pushing out 1.3.5 as it is, but I can't refute the reasons to do it. :-) Daniel On Oct 5, 2009, at 1:03 PM, "Alex Boisvert" wrote: We're voting on the source distributions available here: http://people.apache.org/~boisvert/buildr/

[VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release (take 2)

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 http://people.apache.org/~boisvert/buildr/1.3.5/dist/buildr-1.3.5.zip The documentation generated for

Re: [VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release

Vote cancelled until we figure out the Mac OS X issue reported by Rhett. alex On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Alex Boisvert wrote: > We're voting on the source distributions available here: > http://people.apache.org/~boisvert/buildr/1.3.5/dist/

[VOTE] Buildr 1.3.5 release

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 http://people.apache.org/~boisvert/buildr/1.3.5/dist/buildr-1.3.5.zip The documentation generated for