Ruby versions


(Jonne Haß) #1

Discussion on what Ruby versions to support, recommend and migrate to.


Note: This discussion was imported from Loomio. Click here to view the original discussion.


(Jonne Haß) #2

Proposal: Bump recommended Ruby version to 2.0.0 before the next release


Outcome: We’re going to bump the recommend Ruby version

Votes:

  • Yes: 11
  • Abstain: 0
  • No: 0
  • Block: 0

Note: This proposal was imported from Loomio. Vote details, some comments and metadata were not imported. Click here to view the proposal with all details on Loomio.


(Jonne Haß) #3

Upcoming proposals:

  • Drop support for Ruby 1.9.3
  • Run Travis builds for both, Ruby 1.9.3 and 2.0.0

(Sean Tilley) #4

Hmm…DenSchub makes a good point though.


(Jonne Haß) #5

@dennisschubert this is about supporting 2.0.0 and doing it in the next release. Dropping support for 1.9.3 will be the next proposal.


(Dennis Schubert) #6

@jonnehass crap. excuse me.


(Jonne Haß) #7

Okay, I think that’s clear already. Lets move to the more controversial stuff.


(Jonne Haß) #8

Proposal: Drop support for Ruby 1.9.3


Outcome: We keep support for Ruby 1.9.3 - at least for a while.

Votes:

  • Yes: 1
  • Abstain: 4
  • No: 3
  • Block: 0

Note: This proposal was imported from Loomio. Vote details, some comments and metadata were not imported. Click here to view the proposal with all details on Loomio.


(goob) #9

What (if any) advantages would there be to dropping support for 1.9.3?


(Flaburgan) #10

@goob well the problem can be that we want to upgrade Sidekiq, and the Sidekiq team strongly recommand to upgrade to Ruby 2.0 first. So if we still support Ruby 1.9.3, we will have podmins with an old Ruby but the new sidekiq, and we don’t know what will be going on…


(Jonne Haß) #11

@goob increased maintenance cost and build times on Travis (if we decide to not drop it here and to run it on travis in the next proposal I’ll open).


(goob) #12

OK thanks, both of you.


(Jason Robinson) #13

@fabianrbz if you want to support 1.9.3 I think you should disagree, not agree? :wink:


(fabianrbz) #14

@jasonrobinson, actually I don’t, but I’m ok with supporting it for a while


(Jonne Haß) #15

Proposal: Run builds for Ruby 1.9.3 on Travis

Since we still want to support Ruby 1.9.3, we also shold invest the time on Travis for running builds on it.


Outcome: We keep running builds for Ruby 1.9.3 on Travis

Votes:

  • Yes: 2
  • Abstain: 4
  • No: 1
  • Block: 0

Note: This proposal was imported from Loomio. Vote details, some comments and metadata were not imported. Click here to view the proposal with all details on Loomio.


(Jason Robinson) #16

Hmm so we would run a separate build for 1.9.3? What does this mean in practice? Longer test runs I assume?


(Jason Robinson) #17

Anyone want to give light into the actual how running both will reflect the test running? :slight_smile:


(Jonne Haß) #18

@dennisschubert it’s reading the proposal time again :wink:


(Dennis Schubert) #19

@jonnehass actually, no. while the text is a bit edgy in this case, the argument is still totally valid. :wink:


(Jonne Haß) #20

Proposal: Drop Ruby 1.9 support, adopt Ruby 2.1 support

Ruby 2.2 is on the door, major Ruby libraries start to drop support for Ruby 1.9. Let’s make maintenance easier and drop Ruby 1.9 support and move forward to Ruby 2.1.

Support for Ruby 2.0 will be kept for now.

What changed?

Ubuntu has Ruby 2.0 since Saucy.
Debian will have Ruby 2.1 in Jessie.
Fedora has Ruby 2.0 since 19.
CentOS has Ruby 2.0 since 7.


Outcome: The proposal was accepted.

Votes:

  • Yes: 10
  • Abstain: 0
  • No: 0
  • Block: 0

Note: This proposal was imported from Loomio. Vote details, some comments and metadata were not imported. Click here to view the proposal with all details on Loomio.