search

hotsh / rstat.us

Simple microblogging network based on the ostatus protocol.
http://rstat.us/
Other
722 stars 215 forks source link

Move .rvmrc to .rvmrc.example, git ignore .rvmrc #643

Closed carols10cents closed 12 years ago

carols10cents commented 12 years ago

And update the README to explain to copy it back if you choose to use RVM.

I'd also be open to changing the ruby version in the .rvmrc.example to 1.9.3.

jrgifford commented 12 years ago

I have to ask - what does moving to 1.9.3 add? I'm kind of on the fence on that one... then again, I'm of the "if it works, it works, why move to something else if we don't gain from it" opinion. :)

wilkie commented 12 years ago

Because it already works with 1.9.2 and 1.9.3. We use CI to maintain 1.9.3 forward compatibility. So, why not use 1.9.3?

steveklabnik commented 12 years ago

Rails 4 will only support 1.9.3....

jrgifford commented 12 years ago

Ah, didn't know that @steveklabnik. Ok, guess that's a good enough reason to update the .rvmrc.example.

steveklabnik commented 12 years ago

Honestly, I don't understand why this change is being made in the first place.

Also, since we're targeting heroku for deployment, they now use the Bundler ruby select method now...

carols10cents commented 12 years ago

@locks was all "ruby 1.9.2 whyyyyyyyy"

jrgifford commented 12 years ago

I see. Well, in that case can someone update the .rvmrc.example to 1.9.3? I didn't do that since I wasn't aware of any specific reasoning (I know, that makes me sound silly).

steveklabnik commented 12 years ago

I meant "why do we ignore .rvmrc"

jrgifford commented 12 years ago

It seems to be standard practice. Last I checked, most projects seem to ignore the .rbenv and .rvmrc files.

steveklabnik commented 12 years ago

those projects are stupid.

steveklabnik commented 12 years ago

For more: https://rvm.io//rvm/best-practices/

wilkie commented 12 years ago

What do you gain by using a project specific rvmrc that you don't have with bundler?

steveklabnik commented 12 years ago

.rvmrc files are about providing a clean room per project. Bundler is about managing application dependencies and load paths. They're two different things.

steveklabnik commented 12 years ago

Oh, and 1.9.3 is generally more performant than 1.9.2. Couple of good optimizations in there.

wilkie commented 12 years ago

Without a .rvmrc, what state is the room? dirty?

colindean commented 12 years ago

I think the value of .rvmrc is more in gemsets than in selecting a ruby to use. I'm a little behind on Bundler's added ruby impl selection, but does it also do gemsets?

steveklabnik commented 12 years ago

@wilkie come on, you know exactly what I mean.

@colindean no, it does not do gemsets.

wilkie commented 12 years ago

Well, the only thing the rvmrc is going to do is a rvm --create ruby-1.9.3@rstat.us because that's all you need to do to create a 'clean room' as it was put.

I wonder why the trend is to commit a dotfile to a repo (which is weird in and of itself) and have it force that to happen on a cd and typing 'yes' when they can just type that. Can't we as a culture just assume people are smart? And have them use the tools they have installed for the purposes the tools were designed for?

I don't get it.

If we don't trust them to type out the create command, for some reason, then don't we need a rbenv script to issue one strikingly similar command as well? For people who like rbenv over rvm, yanno? It happens. :)

Regardless, if you want to not type that simple command you should already know how to use, well, you can copy the rvmrc back from the example and then have it magically type it in for you. :P

steveklabnik commented 12 years ago

The dot file is a full shell script, actually, so it can be used for more complicate setups as well.

Anyway, I'm not getting into this argument, do whatever you want, I just couldn't let this go by without my :-1:

carols10cents commented 12 years ago

As much as I :heart: rvm, there are people who don't and choose to use a different way to manage their environment.

To be as friendly as possible to all kinds of contributors, I don't think we should force/advocate/strongarm people into using our favorite.

steveklabnik commented 12 years ago

If you don't have rvm installed, then this file does nothing, so nobody's forcing anyone.

mathias commented 12 years ago

IMHO .rvmrc files are checked into development repos for the same reason that we check in the Gemfile: because it would be annoying to have to maintain separate files on every single developer's box, and for those that use it, it is very useful. For those that don't use it, the .rvmrc does nothing.

carols10cents commented 12 years ago

I know of a person who has rvm installed but doesn't always want to use it, and this person is annoyed by the gemfile trust message that comes up when you cd into the directory. We can definitely debate whether we should care or not, but I know of this case.

Then there's @locks' case-- he uses rvm, we support 1.9.3, he wants to use 1.9.3, but our .rvmrc was forcing 1.9.2. I think this case points towards the usefulness of an example that people can make their choices with, similar to the way we provide a config.yml.example.