On 28/02/09 03:43, somebody called Sean Cribbs (seancri...@gmail.com) wrote
this:

> My apologies for not responding to this thread sooner.  Mohit and Jim
> already touched on reasons why Radiant is kind of an all-in-one package
> but I want to reiterate and clarify some of those.
> 
> * Reduces compatibility issues - libraries will work as intended.
> * Assists with shared-hosting scenarios - who knows what libraries will
> be installed, and whether you'll have ability to update them.
> * Allows the core-team to apply patches to included libraries as
> necessary. (This was a bigger problem around Rails 1.2 time)
> * Allows us to include a non-release version of a library as necessary.
> * Allows you to package up an entire Radiant project, including a frozen
> version of Radiant in vendor/radiant, and mostly guarantee it will work
> wherever you deploy it.
> * RubyGems is nice, but not perfect.  We'd rather not place our project
> at the mercy of an old or broken version.
> 
> Now, there are a number of dependencies we do not include:
> 
> * DB Drivers - mysql, postgres, sqlite3 - these generally have native
> components that we cannot guarantee will compile.
> * RSpec and RSpec-Rails - at the request of a number of devs, these were
> removed from the project so that various tools (autotest, TextMate)
> would play nicer, especially during extension development.  However,
> they are specified as gem dependencies and should be installed along
> with Radiant.
> 
> There are two libraries that are pre-packaged but will use system gems
> if present:
> 
> RedCloth: We package version 3.0.4, but it will load RedCloth 4.x if the
> gem is present.
> BlueCloth: We package version 1.0.x, but it will load RDiscount if the
> gem is present. (Only related to Markdown Filter)
> 
> You are not the first to question why we do things this way, and I
> reconsider it about every 6 months.  However, I believe the benefits of
> packaging dependencies -- primarily "it just works" -- outweigh the costs.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Sean
[snip]

Hi Sean,

Appreciate the response - I don't really have anything more to add at this
point, except that the rationales given make sense to me ATM.

I think I'll need a little more time with Radiant before I can make any
solid assessments about whether I truly agree with them in the long term,
but for now...I'm on board.

Thanks all for making the new guy feel welcome :-)

Cheers,
Mark
__________________________________________________
Mark Glossop - lists <AT> cueballcentral <DOT> com


_______________________________________________
Radiant mailing list
Post:   Radiant@radiantcms.org
Search: http://radiantcms.org/mailing-list/search/
Site:   http://lists.radiantcms.org/mailman/listinfo/radiant

Reply via email to