-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 895
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add support to Rails 5.2 #1067
Add support to Rails 5.2 #1067
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi Rafael. Other than the version constraint, looks good. Please add an entry to the changelog under "9.0.0 > Added", and update the compatibility table in the readme.
Seems S3 is down today, and so TravisCI is having a hard time. We can try the build again later.
paper_trail.gemspec
Outdated
@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ has been destroyed. | |||
s.required_ruby_version = ">= 2.3.0" | |||
|
|||
# Rails does not follow semver, makes breaking changes in minor versions. | |||
s.add_dependency "activerecord", [">= 4.2", "< 5.2"] | |||
s.add_dependency "activerecord", [">= 4.2", "< 6"] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Because rails makes breaking changes in minor versions, I'd prefer < 5.3
here.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is no 5.3. After 5.2 it will be 6.0.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There is no 5.3. After 5.2 it will be 6.0.
Of course, if you say this, I believe you :) You are the person who would know. But, it doesn't change my policy for this version constraint. What advantage does PaperTrail gain by specifiying < 6
rather than < 5.3
? Maybe I am missing something.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the only advantage is make sure that we are using a version constraint that actually exists, but it doesn't matter if we use 6.0, so I'll change.
06dc8fe
to
2a035b3
Compare
Added the changelog. The build is failing because of what I believe is a bug in bundler or rubygems. Not sure how to fix this. Locally I have to comment the rspec-rails dependency, run I didn't change the constraint because the next Rails release will be 6.0, not 5.3. |
I just opened an issue report to bundler rubygems/bundler#6449 |
2a035b3
to
2b3824e
Compare
Changed the constraint. |
Changes approved; 2b3824e looks good. Once CI passes we can merge. |
While I believe 6 is the next planned release, plans can change.
Rails 5.2 is going to be released really soon, and our application depends on paper_trail so we thought about adding Rails 5.2 to the test matrix and allowing installing with it.