Use rake ~> 13.0 av development dependency in gemspec

steveklabnik / request_store

Per-request global storage for Rack.

https://github.com/steveklabnik/request_store

MIT License

1.47k stars 87 forks source link

Use rake ~> 13.0 av development dependency in gemspec #84

Closed olleolleolle closed 1 year ago

olleolleolle commented 2 years ago

This PR

updates rake ~uses a looser rake dependency description in the gemspec, in order to allow ruby-head and other New Ruby versions to pass their tests.~ (The issue was that: Rake 10.5 uses now-removed methods.)
excludes Ruby versions that are too old for that Rake from the CI matrix.

This gets us to 📗 green.

bild

Image credit: lionel abrial, shown here under the Unsplash License.

steveklabnik commented 2 years ago

This may cause breakage when a 0.11 comes out though, right? I am very wary of > in specifications. Hmm.

olleolleolle commented 2 years ago

@steveklabnik 13.0.6 is the current Rake, or are we talking about different things here?

steveklabnik commented 2 years ago

Sorry I meant 11.0.0. I haven't really used Ruby in... a long time, at this point (if you couldn't tell by this version constraint, hehe), so I don't instantly know what the latest versions are, I just went with the next one after what was written in the gemspec.

In general, using bare > in gemspecs is a bad idea because it means you can pull in semver-incompatible changes, which means upstream can break you at any time. Rake is extremely stable and so I doubt that it will do so, it just kinda gives me pause generally.

I probably will just get over it and accept this, but maybe there's also another way here.

olleolleolle commented 2 years ago

@steveklabnik Alright, let's use releases that are any good: this change uses the latest release of Rake, 13.0 series.

That made us drop support for a few ancient Ruby versions - so I changed the CI matrix to reflect that.

steveklabnik commented 1 year ago

Thanks again for this, I've merged https://github.com/steveklabnik/request_store/pull/89 instead. So sorry that I don't have a ton of time for this gem.

olleolleolle commented 1 year ago

@steveklabnik Please don't apologise for not doing archaeology. Also: The fix is what was important, not how it got there.