-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 [dropping jhass]
He says "It's probably just conflicting opinion, distributing Ruby applications to untrained people is still uncommon" On Thursday 01 October 2015 10:26 AM, Pirate Praveen wrote: > [copying jhass, maintainer of diaspora] > > jhass, they prefer email to issue tracker so I copied you here. > > You can see the complete discussion here > http://bogomips.org/unicorn-public/560A31F1.3060608%40debian.org/t/#u > > On Thursday 01 October 2015 01:21 AM, Eric Wong wrote: >> Pirate Praveen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Can you mention the recommended way of adding unicorn in a >>> Gemfile in your home page? > >> I'm not very knowledgeable about bundler, but app servers >> probably should not be in any packaged Gemfile at all. > > May be jhass can explain the rationale for adding unicorn to > Gemfile better. jhass: "Adding unicorn to the Gemfile eases installation by taking a step out of it, allows site local installation of it (--path/--deployment) and ensures the right version so our integrations (config/unicorn.rb, config/eye.rb, script/server) don't break." With debian packaging, our aim is to get a user setup an application like gitlab or diaspora, just using the package manager they are already familiar with. They don't have to know what language it is written, what framework or application server or what database it is using, all they are interested is the application specific configuration . How much compatibility we can expect for config/unicorn.rb? >>> gitlab and diaspora has unicorn in their Gemfile, for a user >>> they want gitlab or diaspora and they don't care if its using >>> unicorn or puma or passenger. >>> >>> I need some kind of an official statement about compatibility >>> which I can show to projects like gitlab and diaspora, so they >>> don't insist on exact patch release of unicorn. I could patch >>> the Gemfile, but that adds extra burden on me as a maintainer >>> which I'd like to avoid if possible. > >> "Official statements" do not have much weight behind them; >> history does. > >> They can look at the git history (especially that of manpages and >> documentation) to see the only feature removals were for >> undocumented cruft. > > jhass, can we relax unicorn dependency to ~> 4.9? > >> Personally, I intensely dislike "official" things; so people >> shouldn't take what I (or anybody) writes as gospel. > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJWDRZyAAoJEM4fnGdFEsIq+HsP/1T373t8YXTm0e+EAwJxcGaH SpSdhDrZGcz9oI3vmwx8N1dX86/28hZzU5TEwi/xB4KN/Xzd+fZwTp1lpwTMcEI9 rSUPnknDo8FatT17fg6B99RmB30uIRbIgVgzfUIj30LL0bGC0ulVlVZEZ95jURb4 YVwXuxgRUH5gV7Ql/LpkBnnTni6kgy9Jsrq7ShaaxGNY2NsMrV3hAeN2aSuSJNU/ jUOZCjXzoDKdGS/pfdPTOdAHVSzKtnJ9cZhktBPbSmvHrJ0Zx7Di6zG8TJAQO+EG n3qlR/ghke4MzNWIprVcqxH37ML6ww913UBCyVRGNOtU+c2/sEd+AlyIjBIzRK9n Nq5jpcAd5doJHgfIesTxWSX4QhjH6XPqPpbMvIFEwHHpiv8lNi/+Rp5mTFAHiEJY zEQCSOQmOBiLY56q/e/OVnK+L+6s9gCxYkynzsmgfrJ0HjBd9DNENMpKgboUj3sN 8I+CqerNq3h4lSvnAyb9pdUiAmSv+uD4aMXtgCltWlcC2cNQL51w6OKBO8+hKMuw uKFihtyUkSD/51e4vmx5lVmz0+7vXPY1CyezbreX50V/zJcYMhJy0Cg42L+BGEWu 8lqrLxoCxua7j5p+hya1D0xuCvQ9eVKmfA2oXwJ7ChR6ZdACMfV6vn47UzYXIyBk 7HbtK7HFc7QVuC3Xg/e8 =JLvl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
