Closed jlurena closed 1 month ago
@mhgbrown Any reason we are maintaining ruby < 3.0?
Everything under 3.0 hit EOL
Edit: @mhgbrown if you'd consider this I also did the following:
No particular reason other than to be most widely compatible. I'm down to move forward and support versions that are "living".
This is great stuff and really moves the project forward. I left some questions for you.
It is done. Please review again. @mhgbrown
This is great stuff and really moves the project forward. I left some questions for you.
It is done. Please review again. @mhgbrown
@mhgbrown I can merge but I'd need you to publish 😄
I'll get on it later today
I'll get on it later today
@mhgbrown 👀
@jlurena Lawd, sorry. This week suddenly became a week of interviewing/doing a trial at a company. Why remove the concurrency option?
@jlurena Lawd, sorry. This week suddenly became a week of interviewing/doing a trial at a company. Why remove the concurrency option?
After research and practical tests, it actually performed really bad. Tested with a redis cache and a memcache cache. Performance degraded significantly. It was visibly slower. @italijancic-th helped test
ok got it! I'll merge it in!
@jlurena finally released: https://rubygems.org/gems/cached_resource
Summary