Re: Request to follow SemVer/mention it in homepage

[Pirate Praveen <praveen@debian.org>]

On २९ सप्टेंबर, २०१५ १:०६:५० [PM] IST, Eric Wong <e@80x24.org> wrote:
>Pirate Praveen <praveen@debian.org> wrote:
>> Do you follow Semantic Versioning as defined by semver.org? If yes,
>> can you mention it on the homepage? If not, can you consider it?
>
>Maybe we follow semver...
>
>No, I'd rather not mention it on the homepage or be formally/officially
>bound to it (see below)
>
>I have considered it in the past, but decided against it...
>
>unicorn is on the verge of becoming 5.x:
>
>This is for internal changes which some weirdo projects (notably
>Rainbows!) rely on; but was never considered public API or marketed
>as such.  I absolutely do not want people building server-specific
>apps when Rack exists.

Can you consider SemVer from 5.x?

>Rack will also hit 2.x soon, but regardless of incompatible changes
>in Rack, unicorn must remain compatible with both 1.x and 2.x for
>practical reasons.
>
>> It will help us a lot in maintain rails applications in debian. We
>> like to keep only one version of any app/lib in debian and if you can
>> guarantee Semantic Versioning rails apps using unicorn could declare
>a
>> looser dependency rather than upto the patch version. Now gitlab
>> defines unicorn ~> 4.8.3 and diaspora defines ~> 4.9.0 If you are
>> following Semantic Versioning they could change it to ~> 4.8 and ~>
>> 4.9 and 4.9.0 will satisfy both. Currently debian has 4.9.0 and it
>> does not match ~> 4.8.3
>
>Tying a Rack app to unicorn is totally, completely wrong and defeats
>the
>point of Rack.
>
>Honestly, I could understand tying an app to thin with it's EM-specific
>API, but unicorn(!?!?)  Even if an app isn't thread-safe, it should
>still work in passenger, thin, or puma/webrick configured for a
>single-thread...
>
>
>Regardless of a formalities such as semver, I'll work to ensure unicorn
>can be compatible[1] with any Rack apps in Debian main.
>Heck, perhaps Rack 0.9.x still works (assuming the installed Ruby
>version supports it).
>
>Just let us know what real problems you find, they will be fixed.

If you can convince gitlab to declare ~> 4.8 and assure it will work with 4.9, that will solve the issue for now.

See https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/2820

Also if you can help convinse diaspora upstream to declare a looser dependency, that will also help.

>Fwiw, Debian is my preferred platform and I can stay 100% within email
>with the Debian BTS + lists.

Glad to know.

>
>[1] I would never say unicorn is the best choice for all apps,
>    but it should at least limp along with sufficiently loose
>    definitions of "working", perhaps with hundreds of inefficient
>    processes in some cases.

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.