I uploaded the new website (see the tagline change ?). I have yet to do a bit of updating to show off our latest release. Any help in updating the downloads and the what's new section is much appreciated.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 11:17, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks again, Antoine, for all your hard work on this release! > > Daniel > > > On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:15 PM, Antoine Toulme > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> The vote passed with 3 bindings +1 and 3 non-binding +1. >> >> Thanks everybody for your efforts on pushing this release out! >> >> I'll update the website and will push the gems to rubygems in the coming >> days. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Antoine >> >> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 10:28, Pepijn Van Eeckhoudt < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > I have to agree that issues with thr current 1.3.5 release are morr of a >> > showstopper for my projects as well. Having to apply manual patches in >> order >> > to get things working on JRuby has held back our internal buildr >> experiments >> > for quite some time now. >> > >> > The patch is attached to the Jira issue Rhett created BTW. >> > >> > Pepijn >> > >> > Op 17-jun-2010 om 18:51 heeft Alex Boisvert <[email protected]> >> het >> > volgende geschreven:\ >> > >> > >> > I agree. I think more people are affected by issues in 1.3.5 today >> than >> >> would potentially be affected with 1.4.0 as it is. The way forward is >> to >> >> release 1.4.0 and address issues promptly as they are reported. We >> can't >> >> keep pushing 1.4.0 out. >> >> >> >> alex >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Daniel Spiewak <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> +1 on cutting the release now, fixing later. Again, remember that >> there >> >>> are >> >>> very few bugs which are *more* critical than our outstanding rubygems >> >>> issue >> >>> with 1.3.5. >> >>> >> >>> Daniel >> >>> >> >>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:26 AM, Antoine Toulme < >> >>> [email protected] >> >>> >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>> >> >>> You mean, the patch you attached to the dev list. >> >>>> I have learnt first hand that patches have harmful side effects. >> >>>> I'm not sure I want to change anything there. I am not sure having a >> >>>> >> >>> cycle >> >>> >> >>>> because you try to call things in the wrong order should be >> corrected. >> >>>> The patch is not attached to a Jira bug, so I lost track of it. >> >>>> >> >>>> And most important, I'm out of juice. I need this release out now or >> >>>> I'll >> >>>> give up. That's me drawing the line in the sand. >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 09:15, Pepijn Van Eeckhoudt < >> >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>>> >> >>>> On 17/6/2010 17:38, Antoine Toulme wrote: >> >>>>> >> >>>>> I think we now have a good understanding of the problem. Mainly, >> that >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> this >> >>>> >> >>>>> is not a good or valid approach. >> >>>>>> Rhett pointed at a workaround ; I guess that using an enhance block >> >>>>>> >> >>>>> would >> >>>> >> >>>>> also have fixed the problem. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> But since there is a patch that solves the problem (at least in >> the >> >>>>> >> >>>> short >> >>> >> >>>> term) and doesn't break the current specs; why not include this in >> the >> >>>>> >> >>>> 1.4 >> >>>> >> >>>>> release? >> >>>>> >> >>>>> Pepijn >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>> >> >>> >> > >
