Return-Path: 
 <users-return-3102-apmail-buildr-users-archive=buildr.apache.org@buildr.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-buildr-users-archive@www.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-buildr-users-archive@www.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BE6B24004
	for <apmail-buildr-users-archive@www.apache.org>;
 Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:11:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 92056 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2011 22:11:09 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-buildr-users-archive@buildr.apache.org
Received: (qmail 92031 invoked by uid 500); 21 Jun 2011 22:11:09 -0000
Mailing-List: contact users-help@buildr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:users-help@buildr.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:users-unsubscribe@buildr.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:users@buildr.apache.org>
List-Id: <users.buildr.apache.org>
Reply-To: users@buildr.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list users@buildr.apache.org
Received: (qmail 92015 invoked by uid 99); 21 Jun 2011 22:11:09 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:11:09 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0
	tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RFC_ABUSE_POST,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of csamuel@gmail.com designates
 209.85.216.44 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.216.44] (HELO mail-qw0-f44.google.com) (209.85.216.44)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 22:11:02 +0000
Received: by qwc23 with SMTP id 23so168643qwc.17
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:references:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from
         :subject:date:to;
        bh=OlRyoH5s+8ofsYQQ5Ral8Bzavy1AOPBZbqSIasZyLA0=;
        b=IJHz5OtUKUOBoqnt6CjJolIgv8UJlSohg35sm9noKDZsBAkSRqRNiqvPAqmQzsP8+y
         qwTYSbGeuBkAJHjYNn+186MtY4ou+Gq3ztg2UCDwa0K0CVfmqYFSkl/YkzVgVCR4JwLj
         IGQzhIBas0O6FSlozwsLGm7DG0ejohW0yOFZg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding
         :content-type:message-id:cc:x-mailer:from:subject:date:to;
        b=kH9WXEpbN1gjWvEwFQNL/nvpstMh3OWShJWlRYITy2skRwx+GQAG1pE/x7bIWVqZGg
         A6aKiG00hv4+jU4PXUpZX5CIpM7+kMYgtBsU/9vbePswFk1R7bx7odNCNq2jw5t9bYxp
         sqJbgiCo95OAd1DZNzvYY8uIsWrY+SqN7Qkg4=
Received: by 10.224.196.1 with SMTP id ee1mr5443588qab.109.1308694240945;
        Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.28.185.212] (mobile-198-228-195-013.mycingular.net
 [198.228.195.13])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 12sm5251705qcb.34.2011.06.21.15.10.39
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:10:40 -0700 (PDT)
References: <BANLkTinU=tuNrpE0aHtp5Z4=aYk1gxj0QA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTinU=tuNrpE0aHtp5Z4=aYk1gxj0QA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=us-ascii
Message-Id: <B3D7BD52-4C84-47E1-8DB2-8837277699CE@gmail.com>
Cc: "users@buildr.apache.org" <users@buildr.apache.org>,
 dev <dev@buildr.apache.org>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (9A5220p)
From: Chris Samuel <csamuel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: VOTE: Remove JtestR support
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 18:10:34 -0400
To: "dev@buildr.apache.org" <dev@buildr.apache.org>
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

+1

On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:38 PM, Alex Boisvert <alex.boisvert@gmail.com> wrote:

> As discussed earlier, JtestR integration has become a maintenance burden
> that I can no longer sustain in my limited open-source time.  In case you
> haven't followed, the main issue is that JtestR is only compatible with a
> restricted set of dependencies (notably rspec 1.3.0 and only up to JRuby
> 1.5.4) which conflicts with buildr's own set of dependencies.   There is no
> plan <http://markmail.org/message/ifjbbh6ppyufvxmi> to upgrade JtestR to
> rspec 2.0 and combined with the very few users actually relying on JtestR
> means the feature doesn't support its own weight.
> 
> VOTE
> [ ] +1 Agree to remove JtestR support
> [ ] +/- 0  No opinion
> [ ] -1 Disagree to remove JTestR support (and propose solution to JtestR
> maintenance)
> 
> If anybody wants to step up and maintain JtestR integration, I would advise
> converting it into a plugin separate from Buildr's core.   I believe a
> separate release cycle would probably serve users better in any case.
> 
> thanks,
> alex