search

smashingboxes / box_cutter

Box Cutter is inspired by thoughtbot's Suspenders. Just like Suspenders says, use Box Cutter if you're in a rush to build something amazing; don't use it if you like missing deadlines.
MIT License
4 stars 2 forks source link

Discuss using .ruby-version or not #3

Open leonelgalan opened 10 years ago

leonelgalan commented 10 years ago

I was a big fan of using this file, but I stop at some point. I remember reading somewhere about not using it, but I can't find. My current policy is that if it works on Ruby 2.1.2, it should work on Ruby 2.1.1, so there is no need to force the devleloper to install the latest patch.

iandonovan commented 10 years ago

I agree with you, Leonel. It was more useful a few months (a year?) ago when there were still some stragglers using 1.9.3, but by now, everyone should be fully shifted over and keeping fairly up to date. My old work machine had like four patch levels of Ruby on it just to deal with someone else's pedantry.

BrandonMathis commented 10 years ago

I am the kind of person that prefers explicit definition. I say to always include a .ruby-version file and you will forever rid yourself of the potential headache of working in the wrong ruby version.

It's a headache that is rare now but it REALLY hurts when you have it. :dizzy_face:

PS: If I ever clone a project that DOESN'T have a .ruby-version file I add one and then exclude it in the .git/info/exclude file

joeyjoejoejr commented 10 years ago

I'm fine with having them in projects, but they should always be an non-specific as is reasonable. So you should specify ruby 2.0 vs 2.1 but not ruby 2.1.1 vs ruby 2.1.2.

.ruby-version files should not be in gems! Those should be developed against the latest version of ruby and tested via travis on all supported ruby version.

reedlaw commented 10 years ago

I believe Travis CI can test against different ruby versions so it may be worthwhile to periodically check that a project passes under all reasonable (recent) versions.