- Apr 10, 2017
-
- Mar 21, 2017
-
-
Jacob Vosmaer (GitLab) authored
-
- Feb 01, 2017
-
-
Mike Greiling authored
-
Mike Greiling authored
-
- Dec 23, 2016
-
-
Alejandro Rodríguez authored
-
- Aug 04, 2016
-
-
Jacob Vosmaer (GitLab) authored
-
- Jun 20, 2016
-
-
Jacob Vosmaer (GitLab) authored
-
- Jun 10, 2016
-
-
Jacob Vosmaer (GitLab) authored
-
- Jun 08, 2016
-
-
Anton Baklanov authored
-
- May 30, 2016
-
-
Tomasz Maczukin authored
-
- May 17, 2016
-
-
Luke Bennett authored
-
- May 16, 2016
-
-
Jacob Vosmaer authored
-
- May 12, 2016
-
-
Jacob Vosmaer authored
-
Jacob Vosmaer authored
-
- May 09, 2016
-
-
Jacob Vosmaer authored
-
- Apr 04, 2016
-
-
Jacob Vosmaer authored
-
- Mar 22, 2016
-
-
Lin Jen-Shin authored
then the process could be using the Gemfile located on the root directory, which only has foreman as the dependency. Later on even if we set BUNDLE_GEMFILE to another Gemfile, bundler might have already setup and ignore the new BUNDLE_GEMFILE. Before this patch, I cannot run the application due to missing `rake`, but cd into the sub-directory and run from there is running fine. With this patch ./run could be running fine as well. I didn't dig into bundler internal to figure this out, but in my experience, messing around BUNDLE_GEMFILE is not a good idea and we should try only use bundler for the application, not the wrapping script. On the other hand, avoid `bundle exec` and prefer `ruby -r bundler/setup` would also reduce the complexity here. (avoiding an extra process) Since foreman is the only dependency in this script, I think there's little point to use bundler here even if it works. If we really like to specify the version of foreman, we could also run with like: `foreman _0.78.0_` or `ruby -S foreman _0.78.0_`, etc. I always use this before bundler. Tested with: * ruby 2.3.0p0 (2015-12-25 revision 53290) [x86_64-linux] * bundler (1.11.2) * foreman (0.78.0) * foreman (0.74.0)
-
- Mar 01, 2016
-
-
Jacob Vosmaer authored
-
- Feb 23, 2016
-
-
Jacob Vosmaer authored
-
Jacob Vosmaer authored
-