Update README#27
Conversation
* Use more realistic versions. * `architecture` is not used for this action. * Remove redundant `name:` in example.
|
@damccorm Could you review and merge this PR? |
|
@bryanmacfarlane could you take a look? |
|
@damccorm @bryanmacfarlane both myself and @eregon are ruby core team members. Can you please add both of us as maintainers of this repo/action? Or can we at least discuss if that's possible or not? Thanks. |
|
Could be great to add @headius as he is the maintainer of JRuby too, so we get everyone with a finger in the pie so to speak. |
|
Indeed, it looks to me this action already has no active maintainers recently, as illustrated by So it would be great if the current maintainers would be more active or if the Ruby community could help maintain it. Otherwise I think it will eventually result in a hard fork, which seems obviously suboptimal. |
|
@ioquatix - I think adding ruby maintainers as contributors here is a good idea. We may need some communication around releases so our on call engineers are informed but I can work with you on that. |
|
@bryanmacfarlane sounds good to me! |
|
@bryanmacfarlane Could you review this PR and merge it? I think it's obvious fixes here and it's safe to merge as-is. |
| strategy: | ||
| matrix: | ||
| ruby: [ '2.x', '3.x' ] | ||
| ruby: [ '2.5.x', '2.6.x' ] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
just to make sure (since I'm not a ruby expert), 3.x doesn't exist, right? If so, then this makes alot of sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Exactly, there is no Ruby 3 version yet: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_(programming_language)#Table_of_versions
And every Ruby software will want to bind to a given minor number, so 2.5.x and 2.6.x is a good example.
| - uses: actions/setup-ruby@v1 | ||
| with: | ||
| ruby-version: ${{ matrix.ruby }} | ||
| architecture: 'x64' |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
right now, I think we need the x64 since we the current setup actions position is VM cache only and I believe it only has 64 bit
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I looked at this action code and nowhere does it reference architecture.
https://github.com/actions/setup-ruby/blob/master/action.yml does not mention it either.
So my conclusion is the argument seems unused.
I also would assume in 99% cases people would want the default architecture, not e.g. 32-bit on a 64-bit Ubuntu worker as that just wouldn't run well.
|
@bryanmacfarlane What's preventing to merge this? It's just fixing the README. I don't understand how it can take so long to merge. There is no risk. |
architectureis not used for this action.name:in example.