Updating gem version Bangkokchat sex
Regardless of whether this is rails, or any other gem.
Use case: My company's internal gem works with any version of rails, and any version of many other gems it depends on.
Fetching version metadata from https://rubygems.org/... Fetching dependency metadata from https://rubygems.org/.. You have requested: rails = 4.2.5 The bundle currently has rails locked at 4.2.0.
Try running `bundle update rails` Found a place the faked source was being merged with the one read from the lockfile, so now tests that want to simulate that case will work.
The gem that needed to be updated had no dependencies and for the sake of maintaining the status quo I did not want any other gems updated since they didn’t need to be.
I assume this is something to do with gem hosting moving to github or something…
@byrnejb : Do you have a link to a blog post or other explaining how P. If you run bundle update --source gem_name and gem_name is not updated then gem_name has other dependencies which differ from those already locked.
Bundler will honor explicit versions set in the Gemfile, even while you run 1 for "bundle update [some gem] [--conservative]" (where '--conservative' can only be added when a gem name is specified on the bundle update command).
Conservative update for all child dependencies, along with aggressive update for the top level dependency, sounds like the way to go. :) On Oct 19, 2014, at PM, Marc-André Lafortune [email protected]: If you care about the versions of implicit dependencies, you should make those dependencies explicit in your own Gemfile. Even if the dependency is explicit, say in my example above I have a gem 'rails', ~ '3.0' in my Gemfile, this might still change the Rails version. There are two very distinct situations when I want to change versions of gems I'm using: I need a new updated foo gem while coding. I can assume that risks of regressions are extremely minimal because only foo changes (or maybe some of the small dependencies from foo's author, say).
I don't bother the QA team for anything that's not related to my new feature.
Of course, this case may be complicated by the fact that "rails" has it's own dependencies, on activerecord etc, that of course will need to be updated too to get a resolution. And I think I've lost the gemfile/that happened in, don't remember what project of mine anymore either. Next time it happens, is it useful if I file a fresh issue, with the complete Gemfile/even if it's complicated?
What keeps me from filing in the past is not even being sure if what I'm seeing is somehow expected behavior (in the past, there have been things I was sure were rubygems bugs, that I was told was not a bug upon reporting), or not having any idea if such reports are welcome and will get any attention at all.
It appears to be something different, involving minor/patch restrictions, which is not what this issue was asking for, and is not something that to me is obviously useful for my workflow anyway.