[LRUG] Gemfile.lock for gems - to check in or not to check in, that is the question

Wed May 10 06:43:32 PDT 2017

+1

Yes, Asfand, I agree. The lockfile ensures that every developer has the
same version of gems. Gems are a bit different, you put your dependencies
in the Gemspec and when it will be used it will become part of a bigger
(usually) code base where Bundler will have to resolve the dependency tree
of your gem, other gems and your local project's Gemfile.

Instead of using bundler, developers should use docker-compose to run the
app, gems will be already be installed for them, including compiling and
packaging other dependencies.

On 10 May 2017 at 12:06, Asfand Qazi <ayqazi at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you all for the input. I'm going to continue following the 'check it
> in for apps, do not check it in for gems' advice. I might even ping the
> documentation owners to tell them to update their docs.
>
> Regards,
>      Asfand
>
> On 10 May 2017 at 11:38, Duncan Stuart <dgmstuart at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That documentation is indeed confusing. I would always always always
>> commit the Gemfile.lock for an application, but ignore it for a gem, but
>> that documentation does indeed seem to say "commit your lockfile for gem
>> development as well"
>>
>> I guess it doesn't matter a huge amount: as I understand it, the
>> Gemfile.lock has no effect on an application that your gem is included in,
>> and is only used for developing and testing the gem in isolation. I can see
>> how it would make sense to lock your *development *dependencies (e.g.
>> RSpec) to specific versions.
>>
>> On 10 May 2017 at 11:25, Stuart Harrison <pezholio at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think the `bundle gem` command adds the lockfile to `.gitignore` by
>>> default.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10 May 2017 at 11:24:12, Sam Phillips (sam at samsworldofno.com) wrote:
>>>
>>> Yes, always check it in. Once the dependency tree is resolved, you want
>>> everyone using the same gems until it's actively changed.
>>>
>>> On 10 May 2017 at 11:22, Garry Shutler <garry at robustsoftware.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 to what Kerry said. If you deploy the same commit of your website
>>>> tomorrow, you don't want it bringing in different, potentially breaking,
>>>> versions of gems.
>>>>
>>>> *Garry Shutler*
>>>> @gshutler <http://twitter.com/gshutler>
>>>> gshutler.com
>>>>
>>>> On 10 May 2017 at 11:12, Kerry Buckley <kerryjbuckley at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The advice I've always followed is that if you're building an
>>>>> application you check it in (so you can guarantee that everyone's
>>>>> developing/testing/running against the same set of dependencies), but if
>>>>> you're building a library you don't, as you don't get to control what
>>>>> versions users of your library are running (other than through the
>>>>> dependency specifications in your gemspec).
>>>>>
>>>>> Kerry
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Asfand Qazi <ayqazi at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have a question regarding Bundler, developing gems, and
>>>>>> Gemfile.lock . It is a question I thought I had the answer to, but
>>>>>> apparently not.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I USED to believe that you do not check in Gemfile.lock, so as to
>>>>>> allow situations during development to occur where your gem is used with a
>>>>>> version of a dependency that you did not expect, therefore allowing
>>>>>> possibly breaking interface changes to dependencies to be made apparent.
>>>>>> This is what Mr. Katz says here, in 2010:
>>>>>> http://yehudakatz.com/2010/12/16/clarifying-the-roles-of-the
>>>>>> -gemspec-and-gemfile/.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However, checking the latest bundler docs, here we read something
>>>>>> different: http://bundler.io/v1.14/guides/creating_gem.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "By running bundle install, Bundler will generate the extremely
>>>>>> important Gemfile.lock file. This file is responsible for ensuring that
>>>>>> every system this library is developed on has the exact same gems so it
>>>>>> should always be checked into version control. For more information on this
>>>>>> file read “THE GEMFILE.LOCK” section of the bundle install manpage."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Que?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do y'all think? Follow the old advice, or the new advice?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>     Asfand Qazi
>>>>>>     The DevOps Doctors
>>>>>>
>>>>>>     E: asfand at thedevopsdoctors.com
>>>>>>     W: https://www.thedevopsdoctors.com/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Chat mailing list
>>>>>> Chat at lists.lrug.org
>>>>>> Archives: http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org
>>>>>> Manage your subscription: http://lists.lrug.org/options.
>>>>>> cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>>>>> List info: http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Chat mailing list
>>>>> Chat at lists.lrug.org
>>>>> Archives: http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org
>>>>> Manage your subscription: http://lists.lrug.org/options.
>>>>> cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>>>> List info: http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Chat mailing list
>>>> Chat at lists.lrug.org
>>>> Archives: http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org
>>>> Manage your subscription: http://lists.lrug.org/options.
>>>> cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>>> List info: http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chat mailing list
>>> Chat at lists.lrug.org
>>> Archives: http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org
>>> Manage your subscription: http://lists.lrug.org/options.
>>> cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>> List info: http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Chat mailing list
>>> Chat at lists.lrug.org
>>> Archives: http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org
>>> Manage your subscription: http://lists.lrug.org/options.
>>> cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>> List info: http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Chat mailing list
>> Chat at lists.lrug.org
>> Archives: http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org
>> Manage your subscription: http://lists.lrug.org/options.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>> List info: http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Chat mailing list
> Chat at lists.lrug.org
> Archives: http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org
> Manage your subscription: http://lists.lrug.org/options.cgi/chat-lrug.org
> List info: http://lists.lrug.org/listinfo.cgi/chat-lrug.org
>
>

-- 
Riccardo Tacconi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lrug.org/pipermail/chat-lrug.org/attachments/20170510/dbdbf7c6/attachment-0002.html>