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

Ruby 2.6 is EOL #9020

Closed
parkr opened this issue Mar 31, 2022 · 8 comments
Closed

Ruby 2.6 is EOL #9020

parkr opened this issue Mar 31, 2022 · 8 comments

Comments

@parkr
Copy link
Member

parkr commented Mar 31, 2022

As of today, Ruby 2.6 is EOL: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/downloads/branches/

It would be great to start targeting Ruby 2.7 in Rubocop and to drop explicit support in CI for 2.6 and below (we can fix things as folks report them if deemed important).

What do you think @jekyll/core?

@mattr-
Copy link
Member

mattr- commented Mar 31, 2022

yes please.

@ashmaroli
Copy link
Member

I'd started the migration in #8955 on 02/02/2022.
At the time, AppVeyor and JRuby didn't support Ruby 2.7..

@ashmaroli
Copy link
Member

Update: JRuby and AppVeyor still doesn't support Ruby 2.7..
AppVeyor can be disregarded since we can always switch to GH Actions. But dropping JRuby support in a minor version (v4.3.0) isn't ideal for Jekyll.

@parkr
Copy link
Member Author

parkr commented Apr 1, 2022

@ashmaroli The strategy I have historically taken is to leave the gemspec alone for minor releases. We continue to allow folks to install Jekyll on the previously-allowed rubies, all we do is remove the CI and target Rubocop for the new version. So it comes down to whether jruby can handle the changes we make via Rubocop.

@ashmaroli
Copy link
Member

So it comes down to whether jruby can handle the changes we make via Rubocop.

The latest JRuby 9.3.4.0 is not Ruby 2.7 compatible.
JRuby 9.4 is in the works, but they seem to be inclined to support 2.7 to 3.1 simultaneously.

@parkr
Copy link
Member Author

parkr commented Apr 6, 2022

I don't think bumping spec.required_ruby_version when it obsoletes a whole platform like JRuby is a good move either, but we can stop testing Rubies 2.5 and 2.6 in Jekyll and move to target 2.7 in Rubocop. We can assign specific exemptions to Rubocop failures that fail on JRuby with a JRuby keyword in a comment and move on. I subscribed to jruby/jruby#6878 to follow the progress. I don't think we need to hold up our progress entirely on them, but we'd remove Ruby 2.5 & 2.6 compatibility silently (rather than with the required_ruby_version).

@jekyllbot
Copy link
Contributor

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not been commented on for at least two months.

The resources of the Jekyll team are limited, and so we are asking for your help.

If this is a bug and you can still reproduce this error on the latest 3.x-stable or master/main branch, please reply with all of the information you have about it in order to keep the issue open.

If this is a feature request, please consider building it first as a plugin. Jekyll 3 introduced hooks which provide convenient access points throughout the Jekyll build pipeline whereby most needs can be fulfilled. If this is something that cannot be built as a plugin, then please provide more information about why in order to keep this issue open.

This issue will automatically be closed in two months if no further activity occurs. Thank you for all your contributions.

@jekyllbot jekyllbot added the stale Nobody stepped up to work on this issue. label Jun 6, 2022
@parkr
Copy link
Member Author

parkr commented Jun 6, 2022

Closed by #8955!

Jruby will need to get on board with 2.7/3.0 features eventually, but definitely agree that we don't want to pull the rug out from under folks in a minor list.

@jekyllbot jekyllbot removed the stale Nobody stepped up to work on this issue. label Jun 6, 2022
@parkr parkr closed this as completed Jun 6, 2022
@jekyll jekyll locked and limited conversation to collaborators Jun 6, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants