Skip to content

Final dist filename change for JRuby 9000. #679

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 16, 2014
Merged

Conversation

headius
Copy link
Contributor

@headius headius commented Dec 4, 2014

Sorry for the additional change...but as far as I can tell, JRuby 9000 is the only build in here using a snapshot/nightly, and things have been in flux. Once we have releases of 9000 we can update this again and it should be ok.

I would like to clarify, however, how snapshot/nightly builds are supposed to work in ruby-build. As we rev JRuby, the snapshot builds will change.... 9.0.0.1-SNAPSHOT and so on. Should we make the filename the same for snapshots on a given branch or something?

@mislav
Copy link
Member

mislav commented Dec 16, 2014

The "dev" builds in ruby-build don't have any special behavior, although there were attempts to improve it by renaming the install directory to contain the current SHA of the branch or date or whatever #334 (comment)

If the snapshot filename and directory inside tarball changes to 9.0.0.1-SNAPSHOT that would be inconvenient because we would need to update ruby-build definition again, and people on the previous version would experience stale installs if 9.0.0.0-SNAPSHOT will stop getting updated in favor of 9.0.0.1. Please give us a heads-up before this happens so we can figure out what we want to do in that scenario.

mislav added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 16, 2014
Final dist filename change for JRuby 9000.
@mislav mislav merged commit 30ec563 into rbenv:master Dec 16, 2014
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants