Pirate Praveen <[email protected]> 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.
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.
Fwiw, Debian is my preferred platform and I can stay 100% within email
with the Debian BTS + lists.
[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.
--
unsubscribe: [email protected]
archive: http://bogomips.org/unicorn-public/
