Skip to content

Conversation

@ioquatix
Copy link
Member

No description provided.

@ioquatix ioquatix added this to the v3.2.0 milestone Jun 11, 2024
@ioquatix ioquatix force-pushed the rack-version-constant branch from c21c6ca to e83bf89 Compare June 11, 2024 05:56
@ioquatix ioquatix self-assigned this Jun 11, 2024
@ioquatix ioquatix requested a review from jeremyevans June 11, 2024 05:57
@ioquatix ioquatix force-pushed the rack-version-constant branch from e83bf89 to 82f846b Compare June 11, 2024 05:57
@Earlopain
Copy link
Contributor

Earlopain commented Jun 11, 2024

Is it worth to deprecate Rack::RELEASE already? It would be nice to keep both around for a while to give time for applications to drop older rack versions so they don't also have to case-when around this in addition to everything else. It's a single line so the maintenance burden here is pretty much non-existant.

@ioquatix
Copy link
Member Author

ioquatix commented Jun 11, 2024

I'm okay with considering different options (e.g. do nothing, or not deprecating it), however it will be between 6-12 months before this is actually released, and then there will be at least another 6-12 months for another release which actually removes it. I don't think that's unreasonable.

@Earlopain
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah, I know it will probably be a while still until this is actually released. The thought that my compatibility code I wrote explicitly to avoid deprecations starts throwing deprecations doesn't sound like the most pleasant experience to me.

Since this is so simple, I'd prefer for this to stay around deprecation-less for a while yet, until Rack 4 (or something else far in the future where libraries can reasonably be assumed to no longer support Rack < 3.2) so people don't have to worry about defined?(Rack::VERSION) ? Rack::VERSION : Rack::RELEASE in addition to the other things.

I know there's Rack.release which doesn't change but since a large portion of gems define Foo::VERSION the first think I go for is some kind of constant for this.

Copy link
Contributor

@jeremyevans jeremyevans left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with @Earlopain , that we don't need to deprecate RELEASE.

@ioquatix ioquatix force-pushed the rack-version-constant branch from 177d151 to c29b3a4 Compare June 11, 2024 14:33
@ioquatix ioquatix requested a review from jeremyevans June 11, 2024 14:35
Copy link
Contributor

@jeremyevans jeremyevans left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

One small change requested, then this should be good to merge.

@ioquatix ioquatix force-pushed the rack-version-constant branch from da8384a to 7da6f44 Compare June 11, 2024 16:07
@ioquatix ioquatix requested a review from jeremyevans June 11, 2024 16:16
@ioquatix ioquatix merged commit 4cfad11 into rack:main Jun 11, 2024
@ioquatix ioquatix deleted the rack-version-constant branch June 11, 2024 16:36
SebouChu added a commit to noesya/rswag that referenced this pull request Feb 13, 2025
Rack::RELEASE might be removed or deprecated from Rack 4 (details: rack/rack#2199)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants