Minimum required ruby for gems?

Help
1

Ruby 3.2 went EOL as of the end of March. I noticed because one of my gems failed its 3.2 tests in CI because the parallel gem now requires Ruby 3.3.

I feel like I have a couple of options for the gems I maintain:

  • Pin parallel to the old version (it’s only a development dependency), then do nothing.
  • Stop testing on Ruby 3.2, call that out in the README, but leave the minimum required version at 3.2.
  • Bump the minimum required version to 3.3.

It seems like the last choice is the correct one, but might cause users some grief. Given that security is moving at the speed of light these days, it also feels like the safest one.

Is this a no brainer? Can anyone make the case for providing a bit more of a grace period for 3.2?

2

Unless it’s security issues (major) and you are willing/have promised to support older ruby versions

Just stick with non EOL ruby versions to encourage people to upgrade

I don’t see major obstacles in ruby upgrading (besides 2.7 > 3.0 might take more time

3

I don’t any any issue with upgrading the minimum required version from 3.2 to 3.3. If someone is still on 3.2 and can’t upgrade they can continue to use previous versions of the gem.

Minor ruby upgrades have been relatively painless in my experience too.

4

Thanks for the feedback. Onward and upwards.

5

Yeah, I’m comfortable bumping the required ruby version up, but I would make that part of a major release if you’re using semver.