remove redundant declarations around require()

[samuelkadolph]

They aren't redundant, they serve a purpose of making sure the version.rb namespace never changes and can't cause problems down the road without tests catching it. It's less likely to happen in a small project like this but in a larger one it can happen and it's hard to track down unless you've done it before.

[sunaku]

Putting a require statement inside a namespace does not cause the required code to be scoped therein:

$ irb
## ruby 1.9.3p392 (2013-02-22 revision 39386) [x86_64-linux]
>> module Foo
>>   module Bar
>>     require "unicorn/rails/version"
>>   end
>> end
true
>> Unicorn::Rails::VERSION
"1.0.1"
>> Foo::Bar::Unicorn::Rails::VERSION
NameError: uninitialized constant Foo::Bar::Unicorn
        from (irb):7
        from /home/skurapati/.rvm/rubies/ruby-1.9.3-p392/bin/irb:13:in `<main>'

Notice that the Foo::Bar namespace had no effect on the require statement. If it did, then there would have been a Foo::Bar::Unicorn::Rails::VERSION constant afterward and not a Unicorn::Rails::VERSION constant.

Therefore, the lines of code removed in this pull request are redundant and can be safely removed. :neckbeard:

[samuelkadolph]

That's not what I meant. The problem can come up when you change the namespace of your gem but not update version.rb which can cause problems like superclass mismatch or X is not a class/module.

[sunaku]

In that situation, your version.rb will continue to define the Unicorn::Rails namespace (as it currently does) and the Unicorn::Rails::VERSION constant too. The problems you mentioned will not be solved by enclosing the require statement inside your newly renamed namespace (or inside any namespace for that matter).

[samuelkadolph]

This is the style I used for my gems now because I've been bitten in the pass when changing the root namespace for the gem and the version craps all over that. I don't see any advantages to removing the module.