Update rr dependency to version ~> 1.1 #1604

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 4, 2013

Projects

None yet

3 participants

@sferik
Contributor
sferik commented Oct 4, 2013

No description provided.

@parkr
Member
parkr commented Oct 4, 2013

We try to stay within PATCH level leniency only, so I'd prefer to see 1.1.0 if you think that's appropriate.

@sferik
Contributor
sferik commented Oct 4, 2013

If rr is following SemVer, ~> 1.1 should be safe. If rr is not following SemVer, then all bets are off. There’s nothing to say they won’t break compatibility in a patch release.

IMHO, if a dependency doesn’t follow SemVer, it is undependable and should be replaced by a library that does. I suspect @mojombo would agree.

If you’re concerned that rr will violate SemVer, you may want to encourage the maintainers (/cc @mcmire @btakita) to add a "Versioning" statement to their README, similar to what I’ve done here.

@parkr
Member
parkr commented Oct 4, 2013

Per this tweet and my faith that these open-source projects will follow SemVer, I'm cool to accept as-is.

@parkr parkr merged commit 38d7093 into jekyll:master Oct 4, 2013

1 check passed

default The Travis CI build passed
Details
@parkr parkr added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 4, 2013
@parkr parkr Update history to reflect merge of #1604 558dad7
@mcmire
mcmire commented Oct 7, 2013

Thought this comment went through, but I guess not. I am currently maintaining RR and trying to stick to SemVer as much as I can. I also happen to test new versions of RR against Jekyll. I agree it would be helpful to add a section to the README about this, however. I'll make a note of it.

@parkr
Member
parkr commented Oct 7, 2013

Thanks, @mcmire! :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment