fix lumberjack version runtime dependency #882
Conversation
guard.gemspec
Outdated
| @@ -19,7 +19,7 @@ Gem::Specification.new do |s| | |||
| s.add_runtime_dependency "thor", ">= 0.18.1" | |||
| s.add_runtime_dependency "listen", ">= 2.7", "< 4.0" | |||
| s.add_runtime_dependency "pry", ">= 0.9.12" | |||
| s.add_runtime_dependency "lumberjack", "~> 1.0" | |||
| s.add_runtime_dependency "lumberjack", ">= 1.0.11", "< 1.1" | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this should probably be < 2.0 instead of < 1.1. No need to lock it in so specific.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@noraj1337 Thanks but I don't see the point of this change: the dependency already allows you to use 1.0.11, and allows you to use future 1.x versions, see http://guides.rubygems.org/patterns/#pessimistic-version-constraint.
We could change the dependency to ~> 1.0.11 but that would unnecessarily restrict the allowed version of lumberjack to >= 1.0.11, < 1.1 (exactly the same as you've done here).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So ">= 1.0.11", "< 2.0" is better. Or may be a less strict ">= 1.0.11".
There was a problem hiding this comment.
So ">= 1.0.11", "< 2.0" is better. Or may be a less strict ">= 1.0.11".
If we want to go forward, and I actually think it's ok in this case, let's do ">= 1.0.12", "< 2.0"!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or even just ">= 1.0.12", let's be optimistic. :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rymai Why 1.0.12 and not 1.0.11 ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why 1.0.12 and not 1.0.11 ?
Because that's the latest version. Just to be clear once again: it's not the job of Guard to fix the "Fixnum" warnings, Guard's current dependency on lumberjack allows the use of the fixed version of lumberjack (1.0.11) so in theory, from a semver perspective, there's nothing to change.
Imagine a project that's using the latest Guard, lumberjack 1.0.10 and Ruby 2.3: no "Fixnum" warning so there's nothing to change in Guard.
Imagine also a project that's using the latest Guard, lumberjack 1.0.12 (because they bundle update lumberjack) and Ruby 2.4: no "Fixnum" warning so there's nothing to change in Guard.
That being said, I'm ok updating the dependency in this case because:
- lumberjack is very stable (not a lot of new releases)
- it's very likely that projects that depend on it are already using the latest version
- it will "fix" the "Fixnum" warning for Ruby 2.4 users (even though it's not Guard's job)
- it's still compatible with older Rubies
- it's good to move forward
Since the dependency upgrade is not needed per se, we can just do ">= 1.0.12", there's no need to use ">= 1.0.11".
Does that make sense?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If no need for backward compatibility that seems ok.
|
@noraj1337 Thanks! |
#863