Hi, Okay so the next question, what versions of ruby do we plan on testing atm? I have run the tests on different ruby versions and at least some versions (i.e. 1.9.2) seem to have a lot of failing tests.
My preference would be to aim for supporting/blessing * jruby-1.6.7 * ruby-1.9.2-p320 * ruby-1.8.7-p358 Thoughts? On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Alex Boisvert <alex.boisv...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Peter Donald <pe...@realityforge.org>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Russ Teabeault <rteabea...@rallydev.com> >> wrote: >> > I thought I had already sent this to the dev group but I don't see it in >> > the archives. So here it goes: >> > >> > I really like buildr and the sanity it has brought from using it to >> replace >> > maven. I would like to see it grow and prosper. One complaint I have is >> > how infrequent the releases are. It has been nearly a year since the >> last >> > minor patch release and over 5 months since the pre release of the next >> > minor patch release. It seems that if there are one or more bug fixes in >> > place then a minor patch release could be done every couple of weeks, >> every >> > week or even every couple of days. I think this is important to the long >> > term adoption and health of the project. I don't want to have to build >> and >> > host my own version of the gem while waiting months for an official >> > release. Now I understand that the maintainers have lives but doing a >> > release should be quick and simple, especially if it is a patch release. >> > >> > So, is there a good reason that buildr can't be released more often? >> >> I don't believe so. Nothing other than someone stepping up to do the >> release I think. >> >> So what needs to be done for the release? Do we have it documented >> somewhere? Is it as simple as getting the tests passing and pushing >> out changes to rubygems? >> > > The process is documented here: > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/BUILDR/Release+process > (could use some minor updating on specifics but the overall process is > still valid) > > The most challenging for me in the past was getting to a local setup where > all the tests passed on all platforms. Things have improved a bit with > bundler but I find it's still a bit challenging. > > alex -- Cheers, Peter Donald
