Remove .ruby-version file

[ydah]

This PR removes the .ruby-version file

Why

The goal is to prevent forcing a specific Ruby version on contributors. Developers should be able to work on this repository regardless of their local Ruby version.

Details

• Previously, the Ruby version was pinned solely to address inconsistencies in hash syntax during documentation generation, not due to internal logic issues.
• I believe pinning the version for this reason is not ideal.
• With this change, documentation generation now produce consistent results without relying on a fixed Ruby version.
• Contributors no longer need to worry about or strictly adhere to a specific Ruby version.

---

Before submitting the PR make sure the following are checked:

• Feature branch is up-to-date with master (if not - rebase it).
• Squashed related commits together.
• [-] Added tests.
• [-] Updated documentation.
• [-] Added an entry to the CHANGELOG.md if the new code introduces user-observable changes.
• The build (bundle exec rake) passes (be sure to run this locally, since it may produce updated documentation that you will need to commit).

[bquorning]

I like this change, but shouldn't we see if we can make the patch in RuboCop instead? I imagine all of the RuboCop projects suffer from this Hash formatting issue.

[ydah]

Probably, but this issue doesn't occur in rubocop/rubocop. I haven't investigated why, but it seems like some kind of countermeasure has been implemented.

[r7kamura]

The following pull requests were created earlier. While it only required a few changes in rubocop-rspec, the other three repositories required changes in many places.

• CI: Test with Ruby 4.0 #2149
• CI: Test with Ruby 4.0 rubocop-rspec_rails#83
• CI: Test with Ruby 4.0 rubocop-factory_bot#172
• CI: Test with Ruby 4.0 rubocop-capybara#161

I think we should apply this change to the other three as well to improve consistency. Otherwise, I'm concerned it will be a lot of work to manually update 4.0 to 4.1 in so many locations again when Ruby 4.1 is released. What do you think?

I believe it is a simple task since it just involves doing something similar, but the drawback is that every repository will end up containing a certain amount of workarounds. If you agree, I can handle all three tasks and submit the pull requests.

[bquorning]

Probably, but this issue doesn't occur in rubocop/rubocop. I haven't investigated why, but it seems like some kind of countermeasure has been implemented.

Actually it seems that this issue does occur in rubocop/rubocop:

❯ ruby -v
ruby 3.1.7p261 (2025-03-26 revision 0a3704f218) [arm64-darwin24]

❯ bundle exec rake update_cops_documentation
Files:         735
Modules:        99 (   14 undocumented)
Classes:       691 (    4 undocumented)
Constants:    1326 ( 1303 undocumented)
Attributes:     45 (    0 undocumented)
Methods:      1674 ( 1445 undocumented)
 27.87% documented
* generated /Users/bquorning/Code/rubocop/rubocop/docs/modules/ROOT/pages/cops_bundler.adoc
* generated /Users/bquorning/Code/rubocop/rubocop/docs/modules/ROOT/pages/cops_gemspec.adoc
* generated /Users/bquorning/Code/rubocop/rubocop/docs/modules/ROOT/pages/cops_layout.adoc
* generated /Users/bquorning/Code/rubocop/rubocop/docs/modules/ROOT/pages/cops_lint.adoc
* generated /Users/bquorning/Code/rubocop/rubocop/docs/modules/ROOT/pages/cops_metrics.adoc
* generated /Users/bquorning/Code/rubocop/rubocop/docs/modules/ROOT/pages/cops_migration.adoc
* generated /Users/bquorning/Code/rubocop/rubocop/docs/modules/ROOT/pages/cops_naming.adoc
* generated /Users/bquorning/Code/rubocop/rubocop/docs/modules/ROOT/pages/cops_security.adoc
* generated /Users/bquorning/Code/rubocop/rubocop/docs/modules/ROOT/pages/cops_style.adoc


❯ g diff | tail -n 6
 | PreferredMethods
-| `{"intern" => "to_sym"}`
+| `{"intern"=>"to_sym"}`
 | 
 |===