I'm fine with continuous compilation going in for 1.4.0. More exposure will help iron out bug. We could label it as a 'beta' feature if we're concerned about initial quality. I've run into issues myself running it on multi-project buildfile. I have a patch in a git branch somewhere...
alex On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 3:09 PM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]> wrote: > I vote +1 on the next release being 1.4.0. I would also like to propose > another major new feature for the release: continuous compilation. This is > sitting in a basically-complete form in my GitHub fork. I've been > dogfooding it for several months now, and it seems pretty solid. The only > three remaining tasks of which I am aware are as follows: > > - Documentation (only a few paragraphs are necessary, I'm just too lazy > to have done it already) > - Specs (this is much harder. I looked into mocking things without any > success. I suspect someone with more Rspec fu would do better here) > - Scala 2.8 support (for some reason, compiler detection doesn't work > normally under Scala 2.8) > > I think if we could get continuous compilation into 1.4.0, it would provide > even more weight for this as the next "major release" for Buildr. > > Daniel > > On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Alex Boisvert <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > Builders far and wide, > > > > We've got a decent amount of improvements and bug fixes done since > October > > / > > Buildr 1.3.5 so I'd like to propose a release in the March timeframe. > > > > More specifically, I'd like to do a release candidate around March > 13/14th > > and hopefully a final release March 27/28th. > > > > This should leave us enough time to round up a few more issues, some time > > to > > vote and update the site with an updated tagline (I dropped the ball on > > that > > since December) and deal with some updates/changes on the release side > > (gemcutter). > > > > How does that sound? Are we ready to call the next release 1.4.0? > > > > alex > > >
