Jean Boussier <[email protected]> wrote: > > Perhaps adding warnings about untested+unsupported > > versions to test_helper.rb and extconf.rb is a better way to go? > > That could work yes. Something akin to: > "This ruby version wasn't tested, blah blah".
OK, can you send a patch for that? > > Then, maybe leave the version check out of the gemspec entirely. > > The gemspec ruby version is very useful but for minimum requirement > only. e.g. `>= 1.9.3`. Yes, I suppose; I was kinda interested in using 2.3+ socket features (replacing kgio) but I might just use io_uring on Linux, at least. > > Fwiw, the type of breakage from incompatibilities I'm worried > > about is subtle things that don't show up immediately > > (e.g. encodings, hash ordering, frozen strings, etc...). > > That's understandable, but 3.0 is not any more likely that 2.7 > to break any of these, and it's important that gems are testable on > ruby pre-release, otherwise you end up with a chicken and egg > problem of not being able to report compatibility breakages > to ruby-core. Agreed. > On a totally different note, it seems that unicorn is not compiling > quite properly against Ruby 3.0.0-dev, at least on linux: > > unicorn_http.so: undefined symbol: Init_unicorn_http > > I'm trying to figure out why the symbol isn't exported, > I might come back with another patch. But just in case > you might have an idea what's going on. I haven't built+tested ruby.git in ages (my computers are too slow). It could be a failure to completely clean out the old 2.8 stuff (either in the Ruby worktree, install paths, or unicorn worktree). -- unsubscribe: one-click, see List-Unsubscribe header archive: https://yhbt.net/unicorn-public/
