Open petergoldstein opened 1 year ago
Hi @petergoldstein !
Sorry about that, I missed the notification it seems.
Is there a particular reason why you'd like to test both under Ruby 3.1 and 3.2? I'm asking because I'd be tempted to replace 3.0 by 3.2.
I keep a few older versions to ensure I keep running regression tests on older Rails versions (which is debatable, but since I haven't officially broken a 2.x.x
tag yet, I want to make sure he version number doesn't lie). I'm otherwise a bit conscious of running long builds (in energy :zap:, not time) for little added benefit. I suppose I can be convinced otherwise, it's not like there is a lot of activity around the gem these days :slightly_smiling_face:
Any thoughts?
Because they are different Ruby versions, don't have compatible behavior guarantees, and behave differently in a variety of circumstances. The fact that a gem runs under 3.2 (or 3.0) gives you only a little confidence regarding 3.1. Generally speaking I prefer CI to run each "minor" version of Ruby since, in practice, each of these versions is a major version in the semantic versioning sense.
Fair enough. And I don't think the build runs often enough for the extra steps to be a problem. 👍
Runs green on my fork.