Gems have been pushed to rubygems. I'll try uploading the all-in-one package to rubyforge.
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 15:46, Antoine Toulme <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
