-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 102
Conversation
Do you have a citation saying this is now considered best practise? As I don't want to do this without some community backing of "this is a better idea ™"; Gems normally have an empty bundle file (other than The only reason we do is our ridiculous whackamole for older Rubies. I'd much rather remove all the gem overrides and go back to relying on gemspecs. (Same goes for linked PRs) |
Not really. The only remotely related confirmation for this is https://bundler.io/v2.2/man/gemfile.5.html#GEMSPEC
Even though it contradicts the very existence of
If we ever happen to need to test against different versions of soft-dependencies (e.g.
Absolutely agree. We'd have to abandon JRuby tests, make |
As rubygems / bundler come closer to merging, maybe its worth asking the core team what they would do? We can then follow them and hey thats an opportunity for a blog post to talk about it 😂 |
Smells free virtual karma! 😆 I'll close this, since due to curious circumstances, there's no clarity what approach is correct. For sibling PRs removed this change, too. Only kept Cucumber update. |
A similar (unmerged) `rspec-support` PR rspec/rspec-support#517 Reasoning (https://bundler.io/v2.2/man/gemfile.5.html#GEMSPEC): > The .gemspec file is ... where you specify the dependencies your gem needs *to run*. Even though it contradicts the very existence of add_development_dependency. Discussions: - rubygems/rubygems#5065 - rubygems/rubygems#1104
A similar (unmerged) `rspec-support` PR rspec/rspec-support#517 Reasoning (https://bundler.io/v2.2/man/gemfile.5.html#GEMSPEC): > The .gemspec file is ... where you specify the dependencies your gem needs *to run*. Even though it contradicts the very existence of add_development_dependency. Discussions: - rubygems/rubygems#5065 - rubygems/rubygems#1104
A similar (unmerged) `rspec-support` PR rspec/rspec-support#517 Reasoning (https://bundler.io/v2.2/man/gemfile.5.html#GEMSPEC): > The .gemspec file is ... where you specify the dependencies your gem needs *to run*. Even though it contradicts the very existence of add_development_dependency. Discussions: - rubygems/rubygems#5065 - rubygems/rubygems#1104
I'd love to revive this PR eventually, in the light of new circumstances, with the introduction of |
Citation still required, Rubocop has a ton of rules which aren't "standard"... |
I would rely on this with my judgement. |
I read that (took a while, very wordy) but it doesn't seem like a clear conclusion, I think until its marked as deprecated we'll stick with specifying them in the gemspec. |
A similar (unmerged) `rspec-support` PR rspec/rspec-support#517 Reasoning (https://bundler.io/v2.2/man/gemfile.5.html#GEMSPEC): > The .gemspec file is ... where you specify the dependencies your gem needs *to run*. Even though it contradicts the very existence of add_development_dependency. Discussions: - rubygems/rubygems#5065 - rubygems/rubygems#1104
A similar (unmerged) `rspec-support` PR rspec/rspec-support#517 Reasoning (https://bundler.io/v2.2/man/gemfile.5.html#GEMSPEC): > The .gemspec file is ... where you specify the dependencies your gem needs *to run*. Even though it contradicts the very existence of add_development_dependency. Discussions: - rubygems/rubygems#5065 - rubygems/rubygems#1104
Sibling PRs: