You better do it. I am not privy to the words of power required to cut a release. That and my Apache username is different from my local username, so the release task doesn't work for me. :-)
Daniel On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 10:51 PM, Antoine Toulme <anto...@lunar-ocean.com>wrote: > I'll try to cut RC2 now, unless you're on it ? > > Thanks Daniel! > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 19:46, Daniel Spiewak <djspie...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The issues with the specs were caused by flaky FSC. I've rejiggered the > > Rake task to turn off FSC when running the spec suite (for Buildr). All > > the > > specs are passing now, so we can go ahead and cut RC2. > > > > In the meantime, I'm going to grab the latest from the JRuby 1.5 stream > and > > run through my litany of projects to see if everything looks sane. > Unless > > anything dramatic comes up in the next couple days, I think we should > call > > it a release. Hopefully we can avoid pushing this back any more... :-) > > > > Daniel > > > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:15 PM, Antoine Toulme <anto...@lunar-ocean.com > > >wrote: > > > > > The release script will fail if I try to release with failing specs. > The > > > alternative is to comment them as pending. > > > I can try to tackle them very quickly - but my Scala book is supposed > to > > > arrive tomorrow. > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 17:06, Daniel Spiewak <djspie...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> We can either issue RC2, or we can go straight to the full release. > My > > >> impression is that JRuby 1.5 isn't going to go GA for a while, so it's > > not > > >> worth waiting unless there's a testing advantage (like fixing those > > specs I > > >> don't understand). :-) > > >> > > >> Daniel > > >> > > >> > > >> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 7:04 PM, Antoine Toulme < > > anto...@lunar-ocean.com>wrote: > > >> > > >>> I'm all for it. Want to issue RC2 ? I can try again, with pygments > this > > >>> time. > > >>> > > >>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 22:47, Daniel Spiewak <djspie...@gmail.com> > > >>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > Default versions for ScalaCheck and ScalaTest pushed to 1.6 and > > 1.0.1, > > >>> > respectively (Bill just made the release). Three tests are failing > > in > > >>> the > > >>> > ScalaTest specs, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with ScalaTest > as > > to > > >>> > figure out what's going on (one of them just looks like a transient > > FSC > > >>> > failure). > > >>> > > > >>> > Once we get these passing again (and assuming it's before Tuesday), > I > > >>> vote > > >>> > that we cut a new release candidate so we can get some more testing > > in > > >>> > before our deadline for JRuby 1.5. > > >>> > > > >>> > Daniel > > >>> > > > >>> > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 11:10 PM, Alex Boisvert < > > >>> alex.boisv...@gmail.com > > >>> > >wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > > On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 8:44 PM, Daniel Spiewak < > > djspie...@gmail.com > > >>> > > > >>> > > wrote: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > I thought about that, but I'm leery about holding up our > release > > >>> even > > >>> > > > longer. I wouldn't mind giving them one or two days, but any > > >>> longer... > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > How about this: we allow maybe two days waiting for JRuby 1.5. > > In > > >>> the > > >>> > > > meantime, we test with the 1.5 RC to make sure there isn't > > anything > > >>> > that > > >>> > > > would trip us up. If 1.5 GA doesn't come out before Tuesday > > night, > > >>> we > > >>> > do > > >>> > > > the 1.4 release without it. Once 1.5 comes out, we can test > > >>> against it > > >>> > > and > > >>> > > > repackage the all-in-one distribution. If there are any bugs > > which > > >>> > crop > > >>> > > up > > >>> > > > because of changes from 1.5 RC to 1.5 GA, we can do a 1.4.1 (or > > >>> perhaps > > >>> > > > 1.4.0.1) release at that time. I don't see this as a > > particularly > > >>> > likely > > >>> > > > scenario though, it seems like all we should need to do is > > >>> repackage > > >>> > the > > >>> > > > all-in-one and we'll be golden. > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > How does that strike everyone? > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > Fine by me. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > alex > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > >
