On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 04:55:52PM -0700, Chad Woolley wrote: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 1:42 PM, Nick Quaranto<n...@quaran.to> wrote: > > Please note I'm not suggesting that all of these happen *this instant*, I > > just want to open up discussion about making this happen and what would be > > involved. Your thoughts and comments would be appreciated. > > To be honest, this seems Not Ready For Prime Time: > > * Pagination/sorting is wrong and broken > * Project pages contain obviously broken/incorrect links (version and > homepage links) > * Project pages seem to have much less information than I have on > RubyForge. No release notes, individual file links (.gem, .tar, etc), > etc... (broken and less != transparent and accessible) > * I uploaded a gem to RubyForge yesterday just before midnight, it is > still not mirrored sixteen hours later (and it was available almost > immediately on Rubyforge, which shows their mirror process is working > very well) > > That's just what I found in one minute of poking around, it doesn't > give me a good feeling for the overall quality and stability of the > effort. I'm also concerned about long-term support. No offense to > you, but Tom Copeland is a machine, he is always there to support > Rubyforge, year after year... > > In general, if it Ain't Broken, Don't Fix It - and think especially > hard if the replacement isn't a no-brainer out-of-the-park homerun...
I didn't think this was supposed to be a replacement for rubyforge, but a replacement for the rubyforge gem server. > Is there a reason we can't get many of these benefits from > RubyForge.org? For example, your API seems like a good idea, but why > can't it be a wrapper or enhancement to the current RubyGems/RubyForge > ecosystem? A Gem plugin, even? > > Finally, I don't see why there needs to be a change to the canonical > source, since Rubyforge isn't even really one anymore. That ship has > already sailed, many people don't even publish gems to RubyForge, they > just use Github or their own servers. If anything there needs to be > better support for multiple sources (There are good ideas here not yet > implemented). The multiple-naming problem is a bigger but related > issue as Eric discussed If people aren't willing to publish to the canonical source, it sounds like something is Is Broken, so we Should Fix It. -- Aaron Patterson http://tenderlovemaking.com/ _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
