Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
Relax fog-core constraint
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history 
Relaxing the lower version constraint to be less restrictive in combinations with other providers.

Reference: ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-google#73
  • Loading branch information
@Temikus
Temikus committed Oct 4, 2018
1 parent 91daa9d commit d96ab29
Showing 1 changed file with 1 addition and 1 deletion.
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion fog-google.gemspec
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ Gem::Specification.new do |spec|
spec.required_ruby_version = "~> 2.0"

# Locked until https://github.com/fog/fog-google/issues/417 is resolved
spec.add_dependency "fog-core", ">= 2.0", "<= 2.1.0"
spec.add_dependency "fog-core", "<= 2.1.0"
spec.add_dependency "fog-json", "~> 1.2.0"
spec.add_dependency "fog-xml", "~> 0.1.0"

Expand Down

4 comments on commit d96ab29

@flori
Copy link

@flori flori commented on d96ab29 Oct 15, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a special reason for not allowing bug fixes on fog-core build level releases like 2.1.1 and 2.1.2? Maybe "<2.2" or even "<3" would be better here?

@Temikus
Copy link
Member Author

@Temikus Temikus commented on d96ab29 Oct 15, 2018 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@flori Because a major disruptive change was done across a minor version increment in 2.1.2 and 2.1.1 had a functional issue. See #417 for more context.

If you have any questions or I'm missing something - just let me know. Happy to help!

@flori
Copy link

@flori flori commented on d96ab29 Oct 15, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I only saw the added deprecation warnings in the changelog. Usually I wouldn't be alarmed by something like that as long as the legacy constants are still in place, but apparently it spooked some people. Thanks for the info.

@Temikus
Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@flori Additional problem to it being disruptive is that some of that deprecation uses caller [1] method which causes a non-insignificant performance hit if I remember correctly.

[1] https://github.com/fog/fog-core/blob/7865ef77ea990fd0d085e49c28e15957b7ce0d2b/lib/fog/core/deprecation.rb

Please sign in to comment.