Backport abbrev dependency to 2.1

[sparr]

With Ruby 3.4.0, projects depending on highline ~2 are now broken.

I propose backporting #270 and #274 and releasing 2.1.1

[abinoam]

Hi @sparr,

I'll try the backport.

But, I'm curious, is there anything blocking the use of highline v3.x.x ?

I'm interested in reduce the friction for adopting the new versions.

[sparr]

I'm hoping to help the project in question update dependencies and fix incompatibilities, but it's not certain that contribution would be welcomed.

[abinoam]

I'm hoping to help the project in question update dependencies and fix incompatibilities, but it's not certain that contribution would be welcomed.

Wouldn't it be feasible to just update the dependency constraints at squib.gemspec?

You can even remove the constraints as it will probably work ok in future versions.

-  spec.add_runtime_dependency 'highline',              '2.1.0'              # https://rubygems.org/gems/highline 
+  spec.add_runtime_dependency 'highline                                     # https://rubygems.org/gems/highline 

What I mean is, I'm open to maintain a backport only if there's a really a good reason for it.

While we're discussing I'm already preparing the branch, if it's really necessary. See: master...issue_280

[abinoam]

See: andymeneely/squib#402

[sparr]

Per my response there... I am not confident PRs to that project will be merged any time soon. Development velocity has slowed and may have stopped.

[abinoam]

So I would suggest you to maintain your own fork of it (squib) with the minimal changes necessary to make it run, while they decide if your PRs get merged or not. I don't think it's a good idea for Highline itself release a official backport now for this singular case.

I'm available to help you make it work if you find any difficult with Highline.

[abinoam]

I'm closing it as stall. Feel free to reopen it if you have any news, I will be glad to answer!