re: Any thoughts on Ruby 2.6? VIEW POST

TOP OF THREAD FULL DISCUSSION
re: I agree you shouldn't test core functionalities but if something that returns true suddenly returns false some tests will break. If they don't mayb...

Within ranges we don’t explicitly test boundaries. We test our internal behaviour for somewhat within the range and somewhat outside of it. Not the boundaries.

a maintainer of a gem should keep an eye on the changelog

In the ideal world she indeed should. Unfortunately, there are many other activities to be performed and I could dedicate some time to update my gems for the new Ruby version only when it’s released. The alternative would be to abandon gems support at all. I still have only 24 hrs/day and I do not even do ruby anymore. I feel like that is the common pattern among a part of ruby community.

There's no right time to fix a bad behavior people built their libraries on

Very true. The thing is you don’t fix it. You say “the implementation of that sucks, but bear with it.” Or you deprecate the behaviour, print boring warnings for at least one major version further and only then you change it. That is how it’s being done in languages made and supported with a care about end-users.

You’ll see how it would go with upgrades to 2.6.

Very true. The thing is you don’t fix it. You say “the implementation of that sucks, but bear with it.” Or you deprecate the behaviour, print boring warnings for at least one major version further and only then you change it.

Yeah, true that, they should have put warning signs everywhere for 2.6 and maybe fixed it in 2.7 (or Ruby 3?).

code of conduct - report abuse