Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make azure-armrest dependency less pessimistic #55

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 4, 2017
Merged

Make azure-armrest dependency less pessimistic #55

merged 1 commit into from
May 4, 2017

Conversation

djberg96
Copy link
Collaborator

This lines up with how the dependencies for gems-pending is setup, and is generally easier to deal with.

@miq-bot
Copy link
Member

miq-bot commented Apr 20, 2017

Checked commit https://github.com/djberg96/manageiq-providers-azure/commit/952ac751b04e7a11f64939be077efb2135018a55 with ruby 2.2.6, rubocop 0.47.1, and haml-lint 0.20.0
0 files checked, 0 offenses detected
Everything looks good. 👍

@bronaghs
Copy link

bronaghs commented May 4, 2017

This means we could point to a new release of the azure-armrest gem before we have updated the manageiq-providers-azure code to be compatible with it. We got burned by this a while ago and have since been explicit. Last I heard we had to be explicit with all gems developed by ManageIQ.

@djberg96
Copy link
Collaborator Author

djberg96 commented May 4, 2017

@bronaghs True, but we were a bit careless in the past with compatibility and versioning. We've been pretty good about avoiding that for a while now.

@bronaghs
Copy link

bronaghs commented May 4, 2017

@blomquisg - what's your take?

@bdunne
Copy link
Member

bdunne commented May 4, 2017

If azure-armrest follows Semver, everything should be Fine. 😉

@blomquisg blomquisg merged commit cca66d7 into ManageIQ:master May 4, 2017
@blomquisg blomquisg added this to the Sprint 60 Ending May 8, 2017 milestone May 4, 2017
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants