Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Jan 10, 2023. It is now read-only.

Relax Ruby version constraint #122

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Relax Ruby version constraint #122

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

n-rodriguez
Copy link

Fix #121

@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Dec 26, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #122 (2b34672) into master (04bcb6f) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #122   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.52%   90.52%           
=======================================
  Files           1        1           
  Lines         359      359           
=======================================
  Hits          325      325           
  Misses         34       34           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 04bcb6f...2b34672. Read the comment docs.

Copy link
Contributor

@AlexWayfer AlexWayfer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Your approach is wrong.

See previous changes and discussion in #109.

Suggestion with the correct code has been provided.

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Gem::Specification.new do |s|
s.homepage = 'https://github.com/codecov/codecov-ruby'
s.license = 'MIT'
s.platform = Gem::Platform::RUBY
s.required_ruby_version = '~> 2.4'
s.required_ruby_version = '>= 2.4'
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
s.required_ruby_version = '>= 2.4'
s.required_ruby_version = '>= 2.4', '< 4'

@n-rodriguez
Copy link
Author

@AlexWayfer
Copy link
Contributor

So Rails is wrong too? https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/activerecord/activerecord.gemspec#L12

I think, yes. Do you assume it can't be? Ha-ha. Rails has many errors (see issues), some of them potential (not noticed or not important for now). It's OK, but we can do it better. Rails is not a standard for Ruby (especially out of web).

If you can argue with something except "some gem has this too", but with something truly about Ruby and the subject — please, do.

@n-rodriguez
Copy link
Author

See the 2019 ruby conf and matz presentation about backward compatibilty. It should br sufficient.

@AlexWayfer
Copy link
Contributor

See the 2019 ruby conf and matz presentation about backward compatibilty. It should br sufficient.

OK, I've checked it. I saw this: https://youtu.be/2g9R7PUCEXo?t=1004

Ruby 3.0 (?)

So, there were plans for Ruby 2.7 but unknown changes for Ruby 3.0. Because it's unknown feature, and even some changes become reverted before releases.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Ruby 3.x compatibility
2 participants