> It also supports Gemfile[1], and we use that feature. That's definitely a nice feature for avoiding redundancy. It seems that the rbenv developers have rejected implementing that in core,[1] but someone has developed a plugin for it.[2]
> So, for the near future, we will leave it to every developer to pick a tool for their development machine, and we are using system ruby on servers/vagrant? I definitely recommend the latter. Keep in mind that the (impending?) migration to Trusty will give us MRI 2.0! 1: https://github.com/sstephenson/rbenv/issues/223 2: https://github.com/aripollak/rbenv-bundler-ruby-version On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:11 AM, Željko Filipin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Dan Duvall <[email protected]> wrote: > >> RVM implements: >> (...) >> - traverses directories upward for .ruby-version and .ruby-gemset >> files >> > > It also supports Gemfile[1], and we use that feature. > > >> Anyway, sorry for the long read. It really comes down to preference for >> developers, and my preference is usually for tools that are less intrusive. >> That's why I now use rbenv over RVM for local development. >> > > Thanks for the long reply! :) > > So, for the near future, we will leave it to every developer to pick a > tool for their development machine, and we are using system ruby on > servers/vagrant? > > rbenv looks interesting, the next time I set up a machine I will set it up > instead of rvm and try it out. > > Željko > -- > 1: https://rvm.io/workflow/projects > > _______________________________________________ > QA mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/qa > > -- Dan Duvall Automation Engineer Wikimedia Foundation <http://wikimediafoundation.org>
_______________________________________________ QA mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/qa
