From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, BODY_8BITS,URIBL_BLOCKED shortcircuit=no autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 X-Original-To: unicorn-public@bogomips.org Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C961633844; Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:36:27 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2015 19:36:27 +0000 From: Eric Wong To: Pirate Praveen Cc: unicorn-public@bogomips.org Subject: Re: Request to follow SemVer/mention it in homepage Message-ID: <20150929193627.GA7572@dcvr.yhbt.net> References: <560A31F1.3060608@debian.org> <20150929073650.GA7434@dcvr.yhbt.net> <40CB6BDA-920D-44E1-B364-D7228248C747@debian.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <40CB6BDA-920D-44E1-B364-D7228248C747@debian.org> List-Id: Pirate Praveen wrote: > On २९ सप्टेंबर, २०१५ १:०६:५० [PM] IST, Eric Wong wrote: > >Pirate Praveen wrote: > >> Do you follow Semantic Versioning as defined by semver.org? If yes, > >> can you mention it on the homepage? If not, can you consider it? > >I have considered it in the past, but decided against it... > > > >unicorn is on the verge of becoming 5.x: > > > >This is for internal changes which some weirdo projects (notably > >Rainbows!) rely on; but was never considered public API or marketed > >as such. I absolutely do not want people building server-specific > >apps when Rack exists. > > Can you consider SemVer from 5.x? Again, the answer is "no". I do not want people to depend on unicorn providing a stable API of any sort. Even if in practice and history it does: the config file directives and internal constant names haven't changed at all in 5-6 years and there are no plans to change it. > >Regardless of a formalities such as semver, I'll work to ensure unicorn > >can be compatible[1] with any Rack apps in Debian main. > >Heck, perhaps Rack 0.9.x still works (assuming the installed Ruby > >version supports it). > > > >Just let us know what real problems you find, they will be fixed. > > If you can convince gitlab to declare ~> 4.8 and assure it will work > with 4.9, that will solve the issue for now. > > See https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/2820 That's not a real compatibility bug with unicorn itself. Again, it's wrong of them to have a dependency on any Rack server at all. > Also if you can help convinse diaspora upstream to declare a looser > dependency, that will also help. > > >Fwiw, Debian is my preferred platform and I can stay 100% within email > >with the Debian BTS + lists. I am only doing plain-text email. I'm done with websites requiring login + registration.