cut tags based on ruby version for openshift/origi about ruby-hello-world HOT 10 CLOSED

honestly i'd rather just fork this repo elsewhere and move the tests to use the fork. One of the main problems w/ this repo is that it is both a public example and required for certain tests. Once upon a time we considered that a benefit (we ensure we don't break our public facing example) but now i'm more inclined to have a clear distinction/indication that "this repo is used by tests, don't change it unless you understand the tests that consume it"

from ruby-hello-world.

(note that either approach requires a bunch of test updates being backported through all the release branches)

from ruby-hello-world.

(note that either approach requires a bunch of test updates being backported through all the release branches)

yep understood, but those existing tests would not be broken in the interim

from ruby-hello-world.

honestly i'd rather just fork this repo elsewhere and move the tests to use the fork. One of the main problems w/ this repo is that it is both a public example and required for certain tests. Once upon a time we considered that a benefit (we ensure we don't break our public facing example) but now i'm more inclined to have a clear distinction/indication that "this repo is used by tests, don't change it unless you understand the tests that consume it"

sure ... the question is where exactly, in particular which org vs. github.com/openshift ?

create a new one?

github.com/redhat-developer?

we do not want to do somebody's personal repo, right?

from ruby-hello-world.

the question is where exactly, in particular which org vs. github.com/openshift ?

might as well be openshift org.

we do not want to do somebody's personal repo, right?

right

If tagging is easier, i'm fine with that as the path of least resistance. Note that you could also just use an explicit commit rather than a branch or tag, if you go that path. And then just update the commit ref as needed.

from ruby-hello-world.

the question is where exactly, in particular which org vs. github.com/openshift ?

might as well be openshift org.

we do not want to do somebody's personal repo, right?

right

If tagging is easier, i'm fine with that as the path of least resistance. Note that you could also just use an explicit commit rather than a branch or tag, if you go that path. And then just update the commit ref as needed.

true ... the human readability could be viewed as a thing. Remembering a year from now that commit is there cause we are aligned with ruby-2.7, whereas it is obvious from the tag

from ruby-hello-world.

Issues go stale after 90d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle stale.
Stale issues rot after an additional 30d of inactivity and eventually close.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle stale

from ruby-hello-world.

Stale issues rot after 30d of inactivity.

Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Rotten issues close after an additional 30d of inactivity.
Exclude this issue from closing by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

If this issue is safe to close now please do so with /close.

/lifecycle rotten
/remove-lifecycle stale

from ruby-hello-world.

Rotten issues close after 30d of inactivity.

Reopen the issue by commenting /reopen.
Mark the issue as fresh by commenting /remove-lifecycle rotten.
Exclude this issue from closing again by commenting /lifecycle frozen.

/close

from ruby-hello-world.

@openshift-bot: Closing this issue.

from ruby-hello-world.