Closed sfgeorge closed 4 years ago
Really interesting how it passes on 2.4 and 2.6, but not 2.5. I even re-ran the job and it still failed. Not sure what to do about that right now - perhaps mark 2.5 as optional? Unless you want to try tackling a fix?
@bklang Good question, yeah I found that puzzling as well. I may temporarily add on the latest table of 2.5... just to check if this is something weird about 2.5.0
. And failing that, then I may take a couple of [milli]seconds to see if this very weird output issue is resolvable; and if that fails, I agree making 2.5 optional is a good call.
Really pleased how this works on 2.6 and 2.7.0dev though!!! 💪
@bklang Ready for re-reviewski! 🕺
LGTM! :shipit:
Test to ensure passing builds against C-Ruby 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6.