Conversation
|
I can see dropping 2.x, but is there anything specific we gain by not just supporting 3.0+? |
|
There's a tiny bit of cleanup i.e. the Gemfile change and generally only supporting supported Ruby versions tends to lead to lower maintenance costs on average. Relatively common practice too. One example, But we can keep 3.x support around if we like. Shall I update this PR to only drop support for Ruby 2.7? |
|
I think unless there's a specific feature we need that's 3.2+ then 3.0+ is fine for now. A lot of people are running older rubies on their personal blogs with jekyll and middleman etc. Likely when there is only one 3.x ruby still in maintenance, we can support just that for stragglers. |
|
As far as the Gemfile changes go, what do you think about moving to these gemified versions of stdlib for all supported rubies if we can? We're moving to a gem for StringScanner, for example. |
71bbe37 to
fb0e88f
Compare
As in these type of gems? If so, sure, I think that's fine. In fact we sometimes need to do so for some newer rubies. Any thing you have in mind to add here? I see we already have Lines 39 to 43 in 800adbd |
fb0e88f to
1d22086
Compare
Drop support for EOL Ruby 2.7. Retaining support for 3.0 and 3.1 for now, for stragglers.
This PR is a modern take on #2129. If we'd rather go with that PR, that's fine. I can close this PR in favour of that one.
References