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

pessimistic net-telnet lock on 0.1 as 0.2 requires ruby 2.3+ #1475

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Jul 31, 2018

Conversation

wk
Copy link
Contributor

@wk wk commented Jul 31, 2018

Pre-Request Checklist

  • Passes rubocop code analysis (try rubocop --auto-correct)
  • Tests added or adapted (try rake test)
  • Changes are reflected in the documentation
  • User-visible changes appended to CHANGELOG.md

Description

Pessimistic lock for net-telnet to 0.1 as 0.2 depends on Ruby 2.3+
Make dependency on net-telnet unconditional since the gemspec is evaluated as bundle time - avoids release master environment drift from having impact on published gems (0.21.0 release had no net-telnet dependency in the published gem, but 0.22.0+ does).

Closes #1472

@codecov-io
Copy link

codecov-io commented Jul 31, 2018

Codecov Report

Merging #1475 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1475   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   62.72%   62.72%           
=======================================
  Files          30       30           
  Lines        1481     1481           
=======================================
  Hits          929      929           
  Misses        552      552

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 868cb67...0dce8f6. Read the comment docs.

@wk wk merged commit 736963f into ytti:master Jul 31, 2018
@wk wk deleted the old-telnet branch July 31, 2018 07:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants