[chef-dev] Re: Re: Re: CHEF-3788: More restrictive gem dependencies?

[Mike < >]

So it looks like CHEF-3788 has been closed recently, and I'm not
disagreeing with the closure.

I am interested in knowing if dependency management is a thing that
Chef 11 is going to stay on top of, i.e. has someone watching
dependency updates (I recommend Gemnasium [1]), and running
updates/tests when needed to validate that the dependency didn't Break
The World.

-Mike

[1]: http://gemnasium.com

On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Matt Ray 
<
 >
 wrote:
> I know my vote is to target Chef 11. Here's to hoping that Chef 10.18 stays 
> very stable for a long time and we can move forward. Introducing changes 
> this late is probably asking for trouble.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt Ray
> Senior Technical Evangelist | Opscode Inc.
> 
 
>  | (512) 731-2218
> Twitter, IRC, GitHub: mattray
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Mike 
> 
 
> Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 7:25 PM
> To: Bryan McLellan
> Cc: 
> 
 
> Subject: [chef-dev] Re: Re: CHEF-3788: More restrictive gem dependencies?
>
> I guess I just volunteered? Should we target Chef 10.18.2, or Chef 11?
> i.e. which branch is the "best" one?
>
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:49 PM, Bryan McLellan 
> <
 >
>  wrote:
>> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 6:05 PM, Mike 
>> <
 >
>>  wrote:
>>> I'm a big fan of looking at each dependency and seeing if they
>>> explicitly declare that:
>>> a) they follow SemVer
>>> b) they are past 1.0
>>>
>>> In that case, using '~> 1.0' is great. Using anything under 1.0, i.e.
>>> moneta, should probably be nailed to the working version, until it's a
>>> problem and deserves revisiting.
>>
>> If you wanted to do all that research and document your findings in
>> comments in the gemspec, that would probably be useful, being such a
>> fan of research that you are. :)
>>
>> Bryan
>
>