Dne 21.11.2016 v 17:33 Jason Frey napsal(a): > Here's the Pull Request and commit that introduced the change. > > https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/pull/1371 > > The Pull Request shows that the purpose of the change is to fix a memory > allocation issue. On large projects with a number of Rubygems it can reduce > String allocations by nearly 50%. I think this is an acceptable bug fix with > respect to SemVer.
Thx for the pointer. It might or might not be acceptable. Looking at the consequences, it is not acceptable for me. I don't think that the memory allocation was new issue introduced in rubygems 2.5.x, so it is not regression. But somebody else might have different opinion and of course sometimes it is hard to foresee the consequences. In this case I would rather hear "sorry and will try to not break things next time for you" ... > > Additionally, SemVer is around versioning of the public API. As the Gem > specification source that is generated by Rubygems is not actually part of > the public API, I don't even think SemVer applies. So output of "gem spec" is not public API? How comes? Is it too much to expect that with patch version change, the output will be still the same unless it explicitly changed to fix some regression? > Modifying them (via sed, no less) is akin to monkey-patching private > methods, which is not covered by SemVer. > > May I suggest that instead of using sed against the source There are cases where sed is used and other cases where the .gemspec files are patched. I prefer "sed" a bit, because althouhg its a bit more fragile, it is more flexible on the other hand. > , which could potentially corrupt the file into invalid Ruby, that we use > Ruby to parse Ruby itself? Since the file is valid Ruby, Ripper could be use > to parse the source, manipulate the S-expressions, and then emit the valid, > modified Ruby. This feels more forward-compatible in the long run. This is good tip and just recently, I introduced some macros into Fedora, which are using similar approach, just using RubyGems constructs [1]. I find it simpler to understand. But the thing is that I know just about breakages in my packages, but I don't know what else is broken and what different approaches people are using to modify the .gemspec. Yes, removing some files from .gemspec file list looks to be something one needs to do from time to time, but so far it was not that common practice to invest energy to something more complex then sed/patch. Vít [1] http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/ruby.git/tree/macros.rubygems#n61 _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list -- ruby-sig@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to ruby-sig-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
