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

Drop support for Ruby 1.9.3. #3235

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Dec 26, 2014

Conversation

Projects
None yet
7 participants
@parkr
Member

parkr commented Dec 25, 2014

This is required by Liquid 3, and, hey, it's time to move on. It may continue to work, but we can't promise that will continue.

@parkr parkr modified the milestones: 2.6.0, 3.0 Dec 25, 2014

@parkr parkr self-assigned this Dec 25, 2014

@parkr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@parkr

parkr Dec 25, 2014

Member

@jekyll/core: Any objections?

Member

parkr commented Dec 25, 2014

@jekyll/core: Any objections?

@parkr parkr added the Enhancement label Dec 25, 2014

@alfredxing

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alfredxing

alfredxing Dec 25, 2014

Member

I'm okay with this. It seems like Liquid will only be dropping support for 1.9 in version 4 though (not version 3), unless something changed that I didn't catch in the issues archive.

Member

alfredxing commented Dec 25, 2014

I'm okay with this. It seems like Liquid will only be dropping support for 1.9 in version 4 though (not version 3), unless something changed that I didn't catch in the issues archive.

@pushrax

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@pushrax

pushrax Dec 26, 2014

Yeah, it won't be officially dropped until v4. Liquid-C only works on Ruby 2+ though, so if you drop 1.9 it simplifies the upgrade path.

pushrax commented Dec 26, 2014

Yeah, it won't be officially dropped until v4. Liquid-C only works on Ruby 2+ though, so if you drop 1.9 it simplifies the upgrade path.

@mattr-

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mattr-

mattr- Dec 26, 2014

Member

If liquid v3 supports 1.9, then we should as well. 1.9.3 support should still be relatively easy to maintain and 1.9 still has a lot of legs in more enterprisey type places. My vote is to keep 1.9 support.

On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Justin Li notifications@github.com
wrote:

Yeah, it won't be officially dropped until v4. Liquid-C only works on 2+ though, so if you drop 1.9 it simplifies the upgrade path.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#3235 (comment)

Member

mattr- commented Dec 26, 2014

If liquid v3 supports 1.9, then we should as well. 1.9.3 support should still be relatively easy to maintain and 1.9 still has a lot of legs in more enterprisey type places. My vote is to keep 1.9 support.

On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Justin Li notifications@github.com
wrote:

Yeah, it won't be officially dropped until v4. Liquid-C only works on 2+ though, so if you drop 1.9 it simplifies the upgrade path.

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#3235 (comment)

@envygeeks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@envygeeks

envygeeks Dec 26, 2014

Contributor

If we are headed towards Jekyll 3 then we should infact drop 1.9.3 in Jekyll 3 regardless of Liquid because to support it any longer prevents us from taking advantage of 2.2 while allowing 2.1 which has most of the features we would want minus the niceties that we should probably take advantage of. Leaving around old cruft prevents things like symbol GC, kwargs and a few other things that would be dearly beneficial in self documenting code (not so much the GC but kwargs.)

Contributor

envygeeks commented Dec 26, 2014

If we are headed towards Jekyll 3 then we should infact drop 1.9.3 in Jekyll 3 regardless of Liquid because to support it any longer prevents us from taking advantage of 2.2 while allowing 2.1 which has most of the features we would want minus the niceties that we should probably take advantage of. Leaving around old cruft prevents things like symbol GC, kwargs and a few other things that would be dearly beneficial in self documenting code (not so much the GC but kwargs.)

@envygeeks

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@envygeeks

envygeeks Dec 26, 2014

Contributor

We aren't the only project considering dropping any support for anything below 2.1 either, but we are the only ones who might have a major release this year. Thought I would throw that in as well. On top of: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2014/01/10/ruby-1-9-3-will-end-on-2015/ -- I know people will always fight for support to remain in Jekyll but that just hinders us and doesn't benefit the plenty because the few want us to remain agnostic and support old versions of Ruby.

Contributor

envygeeks commented Dec 26, 2014

We aren't the only project considering dropping any support for anything below 2.1 either, but we are the only ones who might have a major release this year. Thought I would throw that in as well. On top of: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2014/01/10/ruby-1-9-3-will-end-on-2015/ -- I know people will always fight for support to remain in Jekyll but that just hinders us and doesn't benefit the plenty because the few want us to remain agnostic and support old versions of Ruby.

@albertogg

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@albertogg

albertogg Dec 26, 2014

Member

👍 with @envygeeks

Member

albertogg commented Dec 26, 2014

👍 with @envygeeks

@mattr-

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mattr-

mattr- Dec 26, 2014

Member

Considering the above, I'm ok with dropping support for 1.9.x but I'm not
ok with dropping support for 2.0.x

Member

mattr- commented Dec 26, 2014

Considering the above, I'm ok with dropping support for 1.9.x but I'm not
ok with dropping support for 2.0.x

@parkr

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@parkr

parkr Dec 26, 2014

Member

Thanks guys. We'll keep 2.0 for now.

Member

parkr commented Dec 26, 2014

Thanks guys. We'll keep 2.0 for now.

parkr added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 26, 2014

@parkr parkr merged commit 37631ee into master Dec 26, 2014

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci The Travis CI build passed
Details

@parkr parkr deleted the drop-ruby-1-9 branch Dec 26, 2014

parkr added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 26, 2014

@jekyll jekyll locked and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 27, 2017

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