Skip to content
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

Release 1.2.0 #111

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Sep 7, 2013
Merged

Release 1.2.0 #111

merged 2 commits into from
Sep 7, 2013

Conversation

mostlyobvious
Copy link
Contributor

We have a major feature of Events framework and several improvements and bugfixes. It would be nice to have a release, the last one was half a year ago.

Here's complete list of changes:
bfd357e...master

I've already prepared initial changelog. What do you think?

@seancribbs
Copy link
Member

@samwgoldman @tarcieri Did you guys have any last-minute things?

@mostlyobvious
Copy link
Contributor Author

@seancribbs I didn't want to rush but on the other hand I'd love to have at least a bugfix release when we're waiting for features. I see no point in withholding fixed issues.

@bernd
Copy link
Contributor

bernd commented Jul 18, 2013

👍 For a 1.2 release.

What about #97 and #109? I can take a look at both.

@seancribbs
Copy link
Member

BTW, thanks @pawelpacana for reminding me to do some issue-gardening!

@seancribbs
Copy link
Member

@bernd #97 might be a lot of work, it's incredibly broken as-is. (My fault! I didn't understand the semantics properly the first time.)

Regarding #109, should the semantics be a variant of PUT? I also feel like it should have a specific non-404 response if the client sends PATCH to a resource that doesn't exist, but I might be wrong there.

@bernd
Copy link
Contributor

bernd commented Jul 18, 2013

wrt #97, I see. I guess we can ship that with a bugfix release later.

wrt #109, I just had a look at http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5789

PATCH is neither safe nor idempotent as defined by [RFC2616], Section 9.1.

Does not sound like a variant of PUT to me. So I guess this is also quite a bit of work that we shouldn't put into a release at the last minute. ;)

@bernd
Copy link
Contributor

bernd commented Jul 18, 2013

I just added ruby 2.0.0 to the travis config.

@seancribbs
Copy link
Member

I just added ruby 2.0.0 to the travis config.

👍

@seancribbs
Copy link
Member

Does not sound like a variant of PUT to me. So I guess this is also quite a bit of work that we shouldn't put into a release at the last minute. ;)

Agree. Maybe it should be funneled through something similar to POST.

@tarcieri
Copy link
Contributor

@seancribbs not worth blocking a release on. We should talk about LazyRequestBody at some point though, and how to fix it to allow real streaming

@tarcieri
Copy link
Contributor

@seancribbs perhaps you might consider #113

@Asmod4n
Copy link
Member

Asmod4n commented Aug 2, 2013

I'm sorry,
i though i was editing the Reel Adapter and the Adapter.rb in my Fork but was edititing on master here.
Is there a way to roll the changes back?

Am looking forward to see 1.2 and the changes to the Reel Adapter merged soon.

@seancribbs
Copy link
Member

@Asmod4n I fixed it.

seancribbs pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 7, 2013
@seancribbs seancribbs merged commit 694fcf6 into master Sep 7, 2013
@seancribbs seancribbs deleted the release-me-maybe branch September 7, 2013 17:22
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.

5 participants