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

Test ruby 2.1 instead of 1.9.3 and only launch one test group per travis/appveyor #123

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 5, 2016

Conversation

mwrock
Copy link
Contributor

@mwrock mwrock commented Jul 4, 2016

Ruby 2.0 has been unsupported for some time now. Chef/Chef-DK ships with 2.1 and may soon bump to 2.2. This also gets rid of double travis/appveyor runs in PRs.

@arlimus
Copy link
Contributor

arlimus commented Jul 4, 2016

I like the suggestion and reasoning @mwrock 👍

So far we have tried to keep older versions of Ruby supported, whenever reasonable. For example, users may still use an old yet supported OS release (RHEL 5) which doesn't support newer versions of Ruby under support agreements of the OS vendor. (of course we could package our own ruby, but that's a separate point from this standalone gem)

Is this by any chance related to #122 in a way where Ruby <2.0 doesn't work with the update to WinRM? If so I think it's great to move forward 😄

@mwrock
Copy link
Contributor Author

mwrock commented Jul 5, 2016

Yes @arlimus thats the motivation - the lack of compatibility with winrm v2. 1.9.3 was retired in 2/2015 https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2015/02/23/support-for-ruby-1-9-3-has-ended/ so I think dropping this is fine.

@arlimus
Copy link
Contributor

arlimus commented Jul 5, 2016

Thank you Matt, this helps a lot!

Actually, ruby might have retired 1.9.3, but companies and users that require older yet still supported operating systems (like gen 5 of RHEL/CentOS; running until 31 March 2017 ) may still rely on this version of Ruby. It is supported by the OS vendor. I have worked at companies that mandated this support (due to legal reasons), i.e. removing it may put these users in a difficult situation. I personally run latest and would always recommend that, but it's understandable that customers may have trouble with this.

@arlimus arlimus merged commit 086509a into master Jul 5, 2016
@arlimus arlimus deleted the ci branch July 5, 2016 09:43
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants