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: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,URIBL_BLOCKED shortcircuit=no autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 X-Original-To: unicorn-public@bogomips.org Received: from mail-yk0-f174.google.com (mail-yk0-f174.google.com [209.85.160.174]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D5932021D for ; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 22:13:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-yk0-f174.google.com with SMTP id x67so378079836ykd.2 for ; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 14:13:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=twitter.com; s=google; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=I8svqgUiHKu0pK+qTOTiXXqETy9YPhzENTeV1E+ExkA=; b=K4yJY84YRcuQCOQQOjtda5T99K9hVhYF8vn0Bjagd3kemSyEO1I/r2+3cvPj+Mtt5s tufyh4b9Njx94Drp2isNoe/6v/ao32FvXbD6WD2lZc3OvWmBprwbHlRCsQ9QnibWDbOe NwpJ5AjWjTKKDnUSsOqQKlZzURP7gH+m8Qgnc= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=I8svqgUiHKu0pK+qTOTiXXqETy9YPhzENTeV1E+ExkA=; b=cWf8oDAAQOAPygukISPaNI1ov0Kq5JB/CmpBvF/06hBho9I3vvj3wYUDqELhZEsS5T aJNUJyJxmIKAezqcKNv0PBcFIeVYCyY7jiRJ+FcMjgbCZyYXuzdv1FjnBVopPwefOZPB wd0SR+6DOVQjjylc0ICbrEP/blo6B+/EBwtEdreYfll7poyGjC6Zo08Y+8jJzHbzkd3B 7hjubVeORDFWYOGP5qcTqj0SoNJzl8OaiW3/QJIv+OfoH0jc/0JKIvwc/Ca6RAbCW51w GoZrcmG2nfsIMaFQHAfpBQrBs+OryLxx7lebTYVUn0EP/JdwenxToStlI9RkifvJZKRX 9JdA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlziMlYNhFptVi50rswQCLUfFXsHvTnTEO+S1q8Ajtxq+Xwbv2V14jYwipv2qqvKq1RL06FP5qR/NhhNfM60s4+4eUf6QYgdi/YO1kPex3Q4JJTj9c= MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.13.242.1 with SMTP id b1mr98134048ywf.137.1452291199434; Fri, 08 Jan 2016 14:13:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.13.223.214 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Jan 2016 14:13:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20160108215659.GA36442@TC.local> References: <20160108191807.GA30703@dcvr.yhbt.net> <20160108215046.GA36373@TC.local> <20160108215659.GA36442@TC.local> Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 17:13:19 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] limit rack version for ruby compatibility From: Adam Duke To: Aaron Patterson Cc: rack-devel@googlegroups.com, unicorn-public@bogomips.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 List-Id: Is it reasonable to assume that any rack release that includes bumping the ruby requirement to 2.2.2 would require a major version bump of rack? The dependency in the unicorn gemspec could be as simple as '< 2' if that is the case. On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 4:56 PM, Aaron Patterson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 01:50:46PM -0800, Aaron Patterson wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 07:18:07PM +0000, Eric Wong wrote: >> > Adam Duke wrote: >> > > From: Adam Duke >> > > Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2016 13:06:31 -0500 >> > > Subject: [PATCH] limit rack version for ruby compatibility >> > > >> > > rack introduced a dependency on ruby 2.2.2 or greater in >> > > https://github.com/rack/rack/commit/771d94e5dbe53058160a1f8a4cc56384c1d2a048 >> > >> > Cc-ing rack-devel + Aaron >> > >> > Yikes! ruby-core still supports Ruby 2.1 and possibly even 2.0.0 >> > >> > And there doesn't seem to be any documentation on why Ruby 2.2.x >> > is needed in the first place for rack.git >> > commit a2fe30a5e70371c89c1b29fdc2dc5f8027bc5fe6 >> > >> > http://bogomips.org/mirrors/rack.git/patch?id=a2fe30a5e70371c8 >> > >> > Aaron? >> >> 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. :) > > Oh, I forgot to mention that I don't mind eliminating the Ruby version > requirement as long as we put something in the README that says we only > guarantee it works on 2.2.x and up. Older versions could be "best > effort". I'm just afraid to do something like that because I really > don't want to maintain 1.8 and 1.9 baggage (for example). I used the > gemspec to clearly announce the Ruby versions I actually test with. > > -- > Aaron Patterson > http://tenderlovemaking.com/