Closed ckrailo closed 11 years ago
Looks good. I actually stared at this for a while and wondered why theirs is so complex.
As for Ruby 2.0, let's get the basic functionality added with whatever gems we want to use first, then come back around and try 2.0 on a branch. I'm just concerned about losing some key gems if we need them.
Well, it's 1.9.3 backwards compatible so any gems that don't work with 1.9.3 probably need to be reconsidered anyway.
On Mar 17, 2013, at 10:37 PM, Karthik Hariharan notifications@github.com wrote:
Looks good. I actually stared at this for a while and wondered why theirs is so complex.
As for Ruby 2.0, let's get the basic functionality added with whatever gems we want to use first, then come back around and try 2.0 on a branch. I'm just concerned about losing some key gems if we need them.
— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/dallasrb/dallasrb-web/pull/1#issuecomment-15037791 .
I've cleaned up the .rvmrc left by the rails composer. This one is far simpler.
We may want to consider using ruby-2.0.0?