[Rubygems-developers] 1.4 and 1.9 branch?

Chad Woolley thewoolleyman at gmail.com
Tue Dec 21 05:56:18 EST 2010

On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby at zenspider.com> wrote:
> On Dec 19, 2010, at 15:15 , Luis Lavena wrote:
>> I've merged the code for one of the pull/feature contributions a few
>> days ago, but search couldn't find the concrete logic against 1.4 and
>> 1.9 branches.
>> Is the code in 1.4 the one that is going to be released next? Shall I
>> merge first there the new features and then merge to master?
>> A good hint on the workflow will be great, thank you.
> Eric is in the rainforest and JB is MIA... so I'll take a stab at it and if I'm wrong, I'm sure I'll hear about it later :)
> The code in 1.4 is intended to be released next, and it is currently in a passing state (but... my git-fu is poor). As far as workflow goes, all development should go on master and then be merged to the 1.4 branch once sanctioned. and really... ALL master code should be merged to 1.4--we shouldn't be that far ahead of ourselves.
> I don't think the 1.9 branch is meant to stay, just to manage the chaos currently going on with ruby-core's rubygems vs ours. Once everything is reconciled, I think that branch should go away and all changes made to ruby-core's rubygems should be immediately rolled out without reservation. Otherwise it gets to be too much. Don't bother merging to it. We should be pushing from our release branch to ruby-core's svn as-is.

And, I'll use this as an opportunity to hijack this thread and mention
that nobody responded to my thread requesting feedback on the CI
improvements have ready to merge.

Ryan broke the build.  I bitched about broken windows.  He said the CI
system was broken.  I fixed everything he said, as well as setting up
all Eric's requested interpreters and showing how they are failing for
me.  Pointed everyone to my branch and asked what they'd like to do
next.  Fix the failing interpreters before I start spamming the list
with broken builds, or after?

No response.

Which is why CI is hard.  Not because it is hard to set up.  Because
it's hard to get people to care.  Everybody says they give a shit.
Most people don't want to put forth the effort to prove they give a

-- Chad

More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list