Overview
Request 477529 declined
if we want to ship a newer ruby version it should be 2.4
- Created by darix
- In state declined
-
Open review for
factory-staging
Request History
darix created request
if we want to ship a newer ruby version it should be 2.4
leaper added leap-reviewers as a reviewer
leaper accepted review
ok
jberry_factory added openSUSE:Leap:42.3:Staging:A as a reviewer
Being evaluated by staging project "openSUSE:Leap:42.3:Staging:A"
jberry_factory accepted review
Picked openSUSE:Leap:42.3:Staging:A
maxlin_factory accepted review
Removing from openSUSE:Leap:42.3:Staging:A, re-evaluation needed
maxlin_factory added factory-staging as a reviewer
Requesting new staging review
jberry_factory added openSUSE:Leap:42.3:Staging:C as a reviewer
Being evaluated by staging project "openSUSE:Leap:42.3:Staging:C"
jberry_factory accepted review
Picked openSUSE:Leap:42.3:Staging:C
lnussel_factory accepted review
Removing from openSUSE:Leap:42.3:Staging:C, re-evaluation needed
lnussel_factory added factory-staging as a reviewer
Requesting new staging review
lnussel accepted review
no discussion seen on Factory list. Furthermore there's now https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/openSUSE:Leap:42.3/lifecycle-data/openSUSE.lifecycle?expand=1 to mark things as deprecated.
lnussel_factory declined request
meant to decline
unhandled request type delete
unhandled request type delete
request needs review by release management
looks like ruby 2.2 is still maintained so seems little reason to drop it. In any case, dropping it needs to be documented in the release notes https://github.com/openSUSE/release-notes-openSUSE/blob/Leap_42.3/xml/release-notes.xml
yes it is still maintained but i dont want to maintain 4 ruby versions on a single distro. 2 is enough. unless more people step up to help with it. we will get 2.1 and 2.4.
JFYI: coolo has submitted 2.4 to factory. see SR#477708. I start to clarify why he thinks the package is not done yet. but from my side it looks good.
postpone until discussed
as agreed offline on Friday the state of ruby in 42.3 should be quickly discussed on the Factory list to see if going for 2.1&2.4 only is fine.
Please don't remove it. From my experience ruby is highly incompatible between different versions. That's we would not need to include all versions but we should tell users to use rvm instead to install whatever they need locally. However, once we decided to ship a certain ruby version we should never remove it during Leap lifetime.
will you step up as a co maintainer? i already have people asking for 2.4 ... that would mean 4 ruby releases in parallel. for which i dont have the time.
The users who want to have the newest ruby could use Tumbleweed or rvm. For the next major Leap you could only maintain one ruby version from the beginning.
JFYI even on SLES we deprecate and remove older versions of the same package. see postgresql for example. where we nowadays support 9.4
I don't think that we would rename the postgresql binaries on upgrade or uprade if both versions would speak incompatible SQL language. Moreover postgresql upstream cares about backward compatible upgrades while scripting languages like ruby or python usually try to break as much as possible. That's obviously why we have all these ruby versions at all. Whyever you thought that ruby 2.2 was needed one year ago, these reasons are not gone, it's still needed. See, even upstream still maintains 2.2!
Personally I still need ruby 1.8 because we have unfortunately chosen to use whatever ruby CMS for our website. I've learned it the hard way and switched to rvm to get it still running. But I would not expect to have such a pain when simply following LTS distro minor updates.
we actually rename the binary as they are in a version subdirectory ... the only difference is we also maintain update-alternative links for them. but if you want to address a specific version of postgresql the paths are versioned.
and I think people submitted 2.2 2 years ago because it was the latest ruby version. and 2.3 was the latest last year. and now i have people bugging me for 2.4 because it is the latest now.
and ruby is relatively good at backwards compatibility as well. 1.8 -> 1.9/2.0 was the only really bad cut.
Well and after 2.4 there will be another new version. Looks like Leap is not the right choice for them. As already said, they should use rvm or Tumbleweed. Just don't give them 2.4 in Leap. In Future you will only need to maintain two versions. One in TW (the latest) and one particular old one in Leap.
this statement is wrong on so many levels. but for now weekend.
regarding "1.8 -> 1.9/2.0 was the only really bad cut"
I'd say, they did it once, they will do it again :) The next guy who wants to sell us a ruby website is already out of the race.