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
Bump gem version to 3.1.0 #69
Conversation
The Travis build errored out on the main repo's Travis account, but just to confirm that it's still all green, it passed on my fork: https://travis-ci.org/tjschuck/bcrypt-ruby/builds/6974120 |
(Bump) -- any chance of this happening? /cc @tmm1? |
Done. BTW, it would be awesome if someone who still writes Ruby would take this repo off my hands. |
Per http://semver.org, since the last version, "new, backwards compatible functionality is introduced to the public API", so it should be incremented on the minor version.
@tmm1 All merged, but one of the RubyGems owners will have to publish and submit the new version: http://rubygems.org/gems/bcrypt-ruby (or you can add me to that as well). |
|
@tmm1 Thanks! |
@tjschuck 3.1.0 not up on https://rubygems.org/gems/bcrypt-ruby/versions 3.0.1 is still the latest up there. I'm happy to help too, if wanted. I'm https://rubygems.org/profiles/bf4 |
@bf4 Sorry -- I'll try to get that up shortly. In the meantime, you can always just use a git ref if you're installing via Bundler:
|
I know. I've had it on my fork until I just checked to see a new version |
@bf4 It's up there now. Sorry for the delay. |
@tjschuck Thanks. Did you have any issues building the win32 and java binary gems? |
@tmm1 Tons of issues :) I ended up building this to help me with it. However, the Windows gem is now only 1.9 -- I couldn't get the fat binaries to build (opening a ticket on rake-compiler now), but since 1.8 is EOL'd, I'm not that concerned about dropping support for it. |
Yea, the process is kind of a pain. Thanks again for struggling through it. |
Per http://semver.org, since the last version, "new, backwards compatible functionality [has been] introduced to the public API", so it should be incremented on the minor version.
Since there was no comment on #67, I'm not sure if you agree with the restructuring there. If you agree with that one (or just want to discuss it on that pull request), you can just address this one after that one. If you disagree with the restructuring, that's a-okay with me (just a matter of preference), but I'd still like the gem version bumped so I can start using this version without needing git refs.
Thanks!