Re: [PATCH] limit rack version for ruby compatibility

[Aaron Patterson <tenderlove@ruby-lang.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1859 bytes --]

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 10:37:32PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote:
> Aaron Patterson <tenderlove@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
> > The main reason I bumped it up to Ruby 2.2.x is because that will be the
> > minimum version of Ruby I'll be stuck with throughout Rack 2.x's
> > lifetime.  IOW, I can't drop Ruby versions in anything but a major
> > release so I'm being conservative and only going with the latest (at the
> > time that was 2.2).
> > 
> > I could be convinced to bring down the version number, but I'd like to
> > know why first. :)
> 
> Because other people are _always_ slow to upgrade :)

Yes, exactly. I am betting that by the time people upgrade to Rack 2.0,
Ruby 2.2.2 will be old hat (Ruby 2.3 has been released already!)  ;)

> However, I suppose it's fine to bring the requirement up with a
> major version bump of Rack.  I don't want to burden you with
> old cruft, either.
> 
> unicorn may also be able to drop the dependency on rack by
> lazy loading:
> 
> * Rack::Utils::HTTP_STATUS_CODES is the main thing we use from
>   Rack at runtime; and unicorn would actually function fine if
>   the hash were empty; HTTP status lines would just be short
>   and non-descriptive.
> 
> * The Rack::Builder dependency can be optional, even.
> 
> Fwiw, I plan to support Rack 1.x and Ruby 1.9.3 under unicorn for a few
> more years because of LTS distros.  New versions take priority, of
> course.

Ok.  Let me know if there's anything I can do to help.  Removing the
strict requirement from the gemspec *is* on the table, as long as we
document the supported versions in the README.  I don't plan on using
anything that would be specific to Ruby 2.2.2 and up, but I don't want
to be burdened by older ones either.  A simple comment in the README
would suffice.

-- 
Aaron Patterson
http://tenderlovemaking.com/


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 456 bytes --]