Closed sheerun closed 11 years ago
Also we should get used to calling bin/rails instead of rails, bin/rake instead of bundle exec rake etc.
Why?
"When you install a gem whose executable you want to use in your app, generate it and add it to source control:"
Again, why?
Why we should use bundle exec? I think Rails proposal is very good.
I still haven't head a single argument. Btw - https://github.com/mpapis/rubygems-bundler
This gem is generating stubs, but outside the directory. Using bin/ commands is especially useful on server side. You don't need to care from which directory you call bundle exec. You're 100% sure the commands are called in context of your project. No need for manually setting ENV variables.
Any trick using rbenv, rvm or alias is just hack and hiding the truth, that you're really calling stub or bundle exec.
ENV variables? oO
Server side != development. Adding bin to repository does not matter for server side and only makes development harder
rvm or rbenv have nothing to do with bundler
Of course it matters on server. You can use stubs added to repo on server without any changes.
... or just add --binstubs
to bundle install
.
When using --binstubs it isn't clear what commands are supposed to be actually used in application. Also the autosuggestion using tab is much worse.
... on server side ...
And we will be using Rails 4 in future. The bin directory will be in repository, so bundle install --binstubs will be pain even on development.
I'd suggest more criticism for rails core team. echo /bin >> .gitignore
I think it's wonderful decision. No need for criticism. Local binstubs should not be placed in repository.
Give me one argument, just one.
I gave you more than one.
I agree that binstubs
are better than bundle exec
on server side, but as @teamon I don't get any reasons to keep them in repo and during local development. How rails core team arguments such decision?
I didn't find any argumentation.
From Rails 4 error messages: