Browse files

1.0.0

  • Loading branch information...
1 parent 9473a1b commit c0ccd91cc19d01a76ea0169ecac2337879658030 @tmm1 tmm1 committed Sep 8, 2012
Showing with 1 addition and 1 deletion.
  1. +1 −1 lib/em/version.rb
View
2 lib/em/version.rb
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
module EventMachine
- VERSION = "1.0.0.rc.4"
+ VERSION = "1.0.0"
end

17 comments on commit c0ccd91

@dgraham

@raggi

giving up on the slow close bug then, fair play. if this will calm down the passive aggressive from ibc in my inbox, I'm game.

@Burgestrand

Given that v1.0.0 is up on rubygems now, it would be great if you could tag the commit. Either way, this is sweet.

@ibc

So, version 1.0.0 without IPv6 fixes at all (#297). I cannot understand it.

@deepfryed

any velocity is better than zero, but i agree with @ibc - the maintainers need to be more pro-active in dealing with pull requests. it's plain disrespectful when someone puts in countless hours in improving a widely popular library and gets ignored.

@deepfryed

ugh ugh, @raggi no name calling needed. I appreciate all the work open source maintainers do. But 53 open pull requests, some of them years old, leads me to believe that either maintainers are not finding the time (in which case, it is good to ask the community for more volunteers) or don't have interest (ditto)

If pull requests don't meet the coding standards or platform compatibility, I reckon a saner approach would be to comment so and close them. Atleast it offers some closure and feedback to those pitching in.

@deepfryed

well, @raggi 's deleted comment for the record

@ibc i know you like to merge code without reading it, and just be happy that it works in your environment, but your environment is not the same as all users. your fork is just enhancing the already kludgy implementation we have with more portability and stability problems. sure it'd be nice if Aman and I had more time to give to you ungrateful assholes for free, but when you act like the above it's hardly inspiring now is it?

@wyhaines
@ibc

@raggi, "thanks a lot" for your comment.

The pull request FIXING IPv6 and UDP issues is 7 months old and NO ONE developer has still commented it. BTW the PR does work perfectly and the modified code is correct without introducing issues (the real issue is not having IPv6 support in 2012).

About your words "i know you like to merge code without reading it" please prove it. All the pull requests and changes in eventmachine-le have been properly tested. There could be bugs but not more than those in the original EM that have been ignored during years.

And about your polite words "ungrateful assholes for free", just this: https://github.com/eventmachine/eventmachine/issues/created_by/ibc?direction=desc&page=1&sort=updated&state=open

Said that it is really sad that so many people still try to provide code, bug fixes and features to EM but developers just ignore them.

@lgierth

Can we get back to more productive discussions now, please? Vers beaux temps!

@raggi

@ibc OpenBSD?

@raggi

I deleted my comments because they were reactionary. I'm sorry.

@ibc

Hi @raggi, if the IPv6 fix does not work in OpenBSD or makes it to fail then it would be great to have it reported or commented during the last 7 months. I will try to check it in a virtual FreeBSD (not sure if it would also fail).

@raggi

@ibc i haven't had time to check it. I made the last comments on my way into work on a sunday. If you have a ton of free time, then please start checking all of this, and learning the other platform specific intricacies. If you can demonstrate ability to correct and accept patches that support most of the user base, I'll more than happily give you a commit bit. Until that time, allowing folks to just merge pull requests would just lead to more bug reports from existing users, which would actually move the pin in the wrong direction.

@sj26

Agree with @Burgestrand, could you please tag the commit?

Please sign in to comment.