This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 14, 2021. It is now read-only.
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
Author
|
Diff best seen with whitespace removed: https://github.com/bundler/bundler/pull/7043/files?w=1. |
deivid-rodriguez
force-pushed
the
remove_old_rubygems_compatibility_code
branch
from
078d1f7 to
35ec699
Compare
deivid-rodriguez
commented
Apr 8, 2019
| else # RubyGems 1.3.6 and 1.3.7 | ||
| RubygemsIntegration::Ancient.new | ||
| end | ||
| @rubygems ||= RubygemsIntegration.new |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is a good summary of this PR. Since currently bundler only supports rubygems 2.5 or higher, we can stick to the MoreFuture interface, which I unified in the RubygemsIntegration class.
deivid-rodriguez
force-pushed
the
remove_old_rubygems_compatibility_code
branch
from
35ec699 to
405f25a
Compare
deivid-rodriguez
force-pushed
the
remove_old_rubygems_compatibility_code
branch
from
405f25a to
1eab861
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
This PR might be hard to review if you look at the final diff, but if you go commit per commit, it should be straightforward I think. |
The `source` method has been there since rubygems 2.1.
The `full_gem_path` writer has been there since rubygems 2.2
deivid-rodriguez
force-pushed
the
remove_old_rubygems_compatibility_code
branch
from
1eab861 to
57b06c0
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
Can we get this in? Every time I need to read through this file I'm like 🙈 |
bronzdoc
approved these changes
Apr 14, 2019
Member
|
Sorry for taking too long @deivid-rodriguez! @bundlerbot r+ |
ghost
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 14, 2019
7043: Remove old rubygems compatibility code r=bronzdoc a=deivid-rodriguez ### What was the end-user problem that led to this PR? The problem was that I was unsure where I needed to add the compatibility layer to #6963, and it took me a bit to scan through the compatibility file and figure it out. ### What was your diagnosis of the problem? My diagnosis was that all this compatibility code is unused but makes this file harder to understand and scan through. ### What is your fix for the problem, implemented in this PR? My fix is to remove the code. ### Why did you choose this fix out of the possible options? I chose this fix because we can do it, I think. Co-authored-by: David Rodríguez <deivid.rodriguez@riseup.net>
Build succeeded |
ghost
merged commit
This pull request was closed.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What was the end-user problem that led to this PR?
The problem was that I was unsure where I needed to add the compatibility layer to #6963, and it took me a bit to scan through the compatibility file and figure it out.
What was your diagnosis of the problem?
My diagnosis was that all this compatibility code is unused but makes this file harder to understand and scan through.
What is your fix for the problem, implemented in this PR?
My fix is to remove the code.
Why did you choose this fix out of the possible options?
I chose this fix because we can do it, I think.