Release 0.3.0

[headius]

Anything else we want to get in? I've dealt with recent PRs and issues.

/cc @thedarkone @kares

[sferik]

🚢 ❗

[kares]

Thanks for the merges, I mostly run into issues with atomic (gem install thread_safe fails on Windows by default) but it's fine when downgraded ... so no need to do anything here.

[kares]

OK ignore that one I just noticed it's supposed to be already fixed as well, thanks again!

[thedarkone]

ok with me.

[headius]

Released!

[jherdman]

Was this gem pushed? A few of us are seeing the problem described here today.

[kares]

@jherdman yep it was ... for dealing with the yanked release there's already good answers on the question

[headius]

I'm in transit now but will try to re-push the gem soon.

• Charlie (mobile)
  On Mar 20, 2014 8:29 PM, "James Herdman" notifications@github.com wrote:

Was this gem pushed? A few of us are seeing the problem described herehttp://stackoverflow.com/questions/22510461/could-not-find-thread-safe-0-3-0-in-any-of-the-sourcestoday.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/39#issuecomment-38177049
.

[margaretdax]

Is anything happening with pushing 0.3.0 out again? I've run into issues with gems requiring 0.3.0 several times now and it's a huge headache

[sferik]

It can be unyanked with:

gem yank thread_safe --undo --version 0.3.0

[kares]

there's 0.3.1 already ... just bundle update thread_safe

[sferik]

@kares It’s possible that some gem specifies a hard dependency on 0.3.0, so bundle update will not solve this problem. If 0.3.1 is identical to 0.3.0 (except in version number) I don’t see any reason not to unyank.

[margaretdax]

Ping for @headius. Is this going anywhere?

[headius]

• Charlie (mobile)
  On Apr 30, 2014 5:57 AM, "Logan Blackburn" notifications@github.com wrote:

Ping for @headius https://github.com/headius. Is this going anywhere?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//issues/39#issuecomment-41737482
.

[thedarkone]

@lblackburn can't you bundle update to the newest ver (0.3.3 at the moment)?

[margaretdax]

@thedarkone see @sferik comment. If someone has a hard dependency and doesn't update their version this issue trickles down. Given that the method to unyank has been explained I don't understand why this isn't happening. It has wasted in total probably 10 minutes of my time, I can't imagine I'm the only one.

Also @headius I don't know if you tried to reply with more than your signature...

[thedarkone]

@lblackburn sorry, my fault.

@sferik if I unyank the 0.3.0 won't this bring back #40?

[margaretdax]

You can also just roll back to 0.3.1, change version to 0.3.0, then push that gem to avoid that issue

[sferik]

@thedarkone As far as I can tell, there are no differences between v0.3.0 and v0.3.1.

@lblackburn That will not work, since version 0.3.0 has already been pushed to RubyGems.org and you can’t push the same version twice. This is a good thing.

[margaretdax]

Hmm okay. I know hosting a private rubygems server you can, didn't know you couldn't do that on RubyGems.org

[thedarkone]

As far as I can tell, there are no differences between v0.3.0 and v0.3.1.

@sferik Yes, I know, but for some reason the thread_safe-0.3.0.gem file, after being pushed to rubygems.org, became corrupted (or something else went wrong), and people started reporting issues that were unreproducible, that is why @headius yanked the gem and subsequently released an identical code as 0.3.1.

Since as you say:

That will not work, since version 0.3.0 has already been pushed to RubyGems.org and you can’t push the same version twice. This is a good thing.

I can't re-push a new "version" of 0.3.0. If the one that is on rubygems.org is un-yanked, we will have people again reporting that it doesn't work... or am I missing something?