Hi,
On Sep 16, 2009, at 9:34 AM, Daniel Spiewak wrote:
Alex seems to be the official release-maker at this point. I would
be in
favor of a 1.3.5 release (actually, I think we had settled on
jumping to
1.4). Before we do though, I think we should probably decide which
(if any)
of my unmerged branches (listed earlier in the thread) should be
pulled into
the trunk/.
Perhaps it would be possible to do a 1.3.5 release with various
bugfixes which have already been committed (including OS X 10.6
support), then consider which new features should be merged in for
1.4.0?
Rhett
Obviously, I would love to see *everything* I do automatically
make it into the mainline, so someone else needs to make this
decision. :-)
Daniel
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Rhett Sutphin <rh...@detailedbalance.net
>wrote:
Hi all,
On Sep 16, 2009, at 9:22 AM, Antoine Toulme wrote:
Can we reactive this discussion ?
I note rjb issued a new release to support Snow Leopard.
http://rubyforge.org/forum/forum.php?forum_id=34590
If it's ok, I can try it out, see if all specs pass with it ?
I believe Assaf's already updated trunk with the new version of rjb.
http://markmail.org/search/?q=buildr%20snow%20leopard#query:buildr
%20snow%20leopard+page:1+mid:cux73pnn5qr5vxi3+state:results
Then it would be time to consider doing a release, what do you
think ?
What more can I do to help with it ?
It would be nice to have an officially-released Snow Leopard-
compatible
buildr 1.3.5. I'd also like to offer any assistance I can.
Thanks,
Rhett
Thanks,
Antoine
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 22:35, Daniel Spiewak <djspie...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I vote that we should defer the release until September. That'll
give
all
of us more time to get our stuff in order. We also need to
decide which
of
my forks and knives to try to get into 1.4.0 (I vote for
documentation
support). Whatever we choose, I just don't see us able to get a
solid
release ready in the next week given the current commitments of
the core
developers.
Daniel
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:30 PM, Alex Boisvert <boisv...@intalio.com
>
wrote:
Sorry devs, I won't be able to tackle the 1.4 release before I
leave for
vacation. I haven't managed to tame my work pile and I don't
think it
would
be advisable to make a release and disappear the next day. (I'm
going
to
pretend they don't have Internet on the island where I'm going)
Feel free to release during my absence... otherwise I'll be back
to this
around Sept. 7th.
alex
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 8:26 PM, Daniel Spiewak <djspie...@gmail.com
>
wrote:
I agree: we should start thinking about a release in the near
future.
I
also agree that we should probably call it 1.4.0 rather than
1.3.5,
reflecting the fact that we have added some interesting new
features
(shell
support, cleanup and polish of Scala features, cobertura:check,
etc).
The most important step in getting us to 1.4.0 would be
checking up on
our
faithful specs and making sure that everything is passing
(particularly
on
JRuby, given the extensive monkey patching we did in that
department).
It
would also be very nice to spec out the shell support, at least a
little
bit. In that vein, the shell API needs to be reorganized
*slightly*
before
we make a release, bringing it more in line with the test and
compiler
APIs
(extend Rake::Task, etc). That's pretty minor though, and
wouldn't
break
any of the existing providers.
As for my pending silverware... :-) I've got two significant
features
that
I would *really* like to bring into the core at some point,
preferably
sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, I have run out of
time to
actually
see these through (at least in the near future). These two
features:
- Continuous compilation (branch: continuous-compilation)
- A generic documentation framework (branch: doc-framework)
Both of these can be found in my Git fork: git://
github.com/djspiewak/buildr.git Unfortunately, as is typical
of my
work
on
Buildr, neither of them have working specs. :-) I've tried to
spec
out
continuous-compilation, but I ran into some serious difficulties
with
RSpec's mocking framework. Help here would be appreciated!
Continuous compilation is actually a remarkably simple
extension, only
about
80 or so lines of pretty straightforward Ruby. The only thing
it's
lacking
right now (besides specs) is the ability to recursively monitor
sub-projects. This would be very easy for someone else to add
though,
just
fiddle with lib/buildr/core/cc.rb and you should be golden.
The really interesting change (I think) is the generic doc
framework.
This
attempts to address a glaring weakness in Buildr's multi-language
support:
documentation generation. Right now, Buildr has very convenient
support
for
Javadoc (through the javadoc task), but no support for Scaladoc,
VScaladoc
or Groovydoc. My doc-framework branch removes the javadoc task
(with
deprecation) and replaces it with a more generic doc task.
This task
detects the relevant doc gen provider based on the project
language,
then
uses it to generate documentation in the _(:target, :doc)
directory.
It
also includes support for overriding the default doc gen
provider (e.g.
use
:vscaladoc instead of the default on a Scala project). This is
missing
specs, documentation and actual support for Groovydoc (should
be a few
minutes of work, especially for someone who knows the Groovydoc
API).
Unlike continuous-compilation or interactive-shell, the generic
doc
framework should be quite straightforward to spec out and even
easier
to
document.
If I had to choose between the two, I would really like to get
the
documentation framework into the core before we make a release.
However,
continuous compilation support is a lot closer to completion, so
it
might
be
wiser to focus on it. Alternatively, we could push back the
release
still
further and try to get them both in. This would give us even
more of
an
excuse to call it "1.4.0", but it does of course mean a longer
delay.
The big problem I have right now is that I just don't have time
to
follow
up
with any of these pending tasks. I'll do what I can, but I
doubt I'll
be
able to put as much into Buildr as I have been in recent months.
Daniel
On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 7:42 PM, Alex Boisvert <boisv...@intalio.com
>
wrote:
Buildrs,
Our last release was back in April... Given that we have
plenty of
improvements and fixes to justify a release, I think we should
mentally
prepare releasing before the end of August. I was thinking of
shooting
for
the 18-19th since I'll be away on vacation 2 weeks after the
22nd.
What
do you think?
On my list... I'll start reviewing outstanding issues and maybe
tackle
a
few
easy ones. I've also been working on the Rake <-> Buildr
tutorial
which
should be ready by that time.
Anything on your list? There's also the question of whether
we want
to
release 1.3.5 or rather make it 1.4.0. I personally don't have a
strong
preference either way. I think 1.4.0 would be a nice prop for
the
interactive shell support. And even more so if we can squeeze
other
things
from Daniel's ever-growing tray of forks and knives ;)
alex
