Permalink
Browse files

Prepare 0.4.4 release

  • Loading branch information...
sferik committed Apr 2, 2013
1 parent 3075c59 commit 221936296d6852198cf3bc5ffbcd78ec9a9d965a
Showing with 1 addition and 1 deletion.
  1. +1 −1 delayed_job_active_record.gemspec
@@ -15,5 +15,5 @@ Gem::Specification.new do |spec|
spec.require_paths = ['lib']
spec.summary = 'ActiveRecord backend for DelayedJob'
spec.test_files = Dir.glob("spec/**/*")
- spec.version = '0.4.3'
+ spec.version = '0.4.4'
end

6 comments on commit 2219362

@albus522

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@albus522

albus522 Apr 2, 2013

Owner

What are you doing? I just spent 2 days making this not necessary?

Owner

albus522 replied Apr 2, 2013

What are you doing? I just spent 2 days making this not necessary?

@sferik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@sferik

sferik Apr 2, 2013

Collaborator

Making what not necessary? New gem versions? I wanted to fix the regressions introduced in 0.4.2/0.4.3 as soon as possible with the minimum diff to fix the bug (so as not to introduce new issues). I announced my intent to do this yesterday: #40.

I'm happy to ship 0.4.5 or 0.5.0 or 1.0.0 or 4.0.0 (whatever you want to call it) with your latest changes from #49, including compatibility with multiple versions of rails and delayed_job. I just wanted to push a fix to the existing issue immediately.

Collaborator

sferik replied Apr 2, 2013

Making what not necessary? New gem versions? I wanted to fix the regressions introduced in 0.4.2/0.4.3 as soon as possible with the minimum diff to fix the bug (so as not to introduce new issues). I announced my intent to do this yesterday: #40.

I'm happy to ship 0.4.5 or 0.5.0 or 1.0.0 or 4.0.0 (whatever you want to call it) with your latest changes from #49, including compatibility with multiple versions of rails and delayed_job. I just wanted to push a fix to the existing issue immediately.

@albus522

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@albus522

albus522 Apr 2, 2013

Owner

Ok, I get wanting to push a fix, but the code you pushed as 0.4.4 has only 3 minor differences from master. A conditional around attr_protected, a scope vs a class method, and the updated migration generator code. The rest of the diff is a much more detailed test suite. So I'm not quite sure what you concern is about calling the beta production ready, if you consider 0.4.4 production ready.

Owner

albus522 replied Apr 2, 2013

Ok, I get wanting to push a fix, but the code you pushed as 0.4.4 has only 3 minor differences from master. A conditional around attr_protected, a scope vs a class method, and the updated migration generator code. The rest of the diff is a much more detailed test suite. So I'm not quite sure what you concern is about calling the beta production ready, if you consider 0.4.4 production ready.

@sferik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@sferik

sferik Apr 2, 2013

Collaborator

I didn't merge #49 until after I had already released 0.4.4, which was my top priority. After I released 0.4.4, I noticed that your pull request was no longer a work-in-progress, so I merged it into master.

I'll open a new issue to discuss future versioning plans. I'd argue it should be either 1.0.0 or 4.0.0 (to bring the library in line with delayed_job and rails) but I'm open to releasing another patch (0.4.5) or minor (0.5.0) before making the big jump.

Collaborator

sferik replied Apr 2, 2013

I didn't merge #49 until after I had already released 0.4.4, which was my top priority. After I released 0.4.4, I noticed that your pull request was no longer a work-in-progress, so I merged it into master.

I'll open a new issue to discuss future versioning plans. I'd argue it should be either 1.0.0 or 4.0.0 (to bring the library in line with delayed_job and rails) but I'm open to releasing another patch (0.4.5) or minor (0.5.0) before making the big jump.

@albus522

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@albus522

albus522 Apr 2, 2013

Owner

I didn't notice the order of operations. I am also in favor of version >= 1.0. Let me know where you want to continue that discussion.

Owner

albus522 replied Apr 2, 2013

I didn't notice the order of operations. I am also in favor of version >= 1.0. Let me know where you want to continue that discussion.

@sferik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment Hide comment
@sferik

sferik Apr 2, 2013

Collaborator

@albus522 Let’s continue the discussion here: #50.

Collaborator

sferik replied Apr 2, 2013

@albus522 Let’s continue the discussion here: #50.

Please sign in to comment.