Skip to content
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

Drop Ruby 1.9.3 on AppVeyor #1395

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 23, 2015
Merged

Drop Ruby 1.9.3 on AppVeyor #1395

merged 1 commit into from
Dec 23, 2015

Conversation

maurogeorge
Copy link
Member

Hi guys,

I think we can remove this from AppVeyor since we are dropping 1.9.3 support #1360.

This is causing the build from my other PR #1270 be broken 😞

@bf4
Copy link
Member

bf4 commented Dec 23, 2015

Omg, rubinius, I banish you to the allow failures. I think that's three today! And it happens all the time! cc (with ❤️ to @brixen )

bf4 added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 23, 2015
@bf4 bf4 merged commit 651aef0 into rails-api:master Dec 23, 2015
@brixen
Copy link

brixen commented Dec 30, 2015

@bf4 that issue has been fixed. FWIW, you can thank rubygems for loading a massive Regexp of "acceptable" licenses (yes, they think they can specify what is acceptable) when installing a gem, when it should only be relevant to building a gem (if ever, arguably). But hey, why use #each when you can have the Regexp engine do iteration for you.

@bf4
Copy link
Member

bf4 commented Dec 30, 2015

@brixen I love you, man, but sometimes...

"acceptable"

That list, SPDX, is just standard abbreviations of various licenses. It's not supposed to be checking what's acceptable, just against a standard list. (Full-disclosure: I was involved in getting SPDX into the RubyGems.org spec and collaborated on that PR)...

The regex, however, was added later in rubygems/rubygems#1387 by segiddins and hsbt... I have no idea why they chose the regex approach, but they are certainly Ruby experts...

I agree that the check should really only be made at build. I suppose the problem with that is that people using the rake release bundler task won't get a chance to see the warning until it's too late.

Lemme know when you're back in Chicago :)

@brixen
Copy link

brixen commented Dec 30, 2015

@bf4 you may have a different definition for "acceptable" than I do, but this is rubygems output

$ gem build rubysl-openssl.gemspec
WARNING:  WARNING: license value 'BSD' is invalid.  Use a license identifier from
http://spdx.org/licenses or 'Nonstandard' for a nonstandard license.

"invalid" doesn't sound very acceptable. "unrecognized", "did you mean XYZ", or something similar might be, well, acceptable. More relevant, why is this tool dictating this? And why not in a linting step? Deep questions.

Anyway, the Rubinius issue is fixed. No plans to be in Chicago. Come visit Portland. :)

@bf4
Copy link
Member

bf4 commented Dec 30, 2015

"invalid" doesn't sound very acceptable. "unrecognized", "did you mean XYZ", or something similar might be, well, acceptable. More relevant, why is this tool dictating this? And why not in a linting step? Deep questions.

Ok, the words could probably use some reworking :) 'Someone should do something' :)

Portland... love the city, would love to go, but I just about never fly west.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants