On 03/28/2012 12:16 PM, Mo Morsi wrote: > On 03/28/2012 03:36 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> On 03/27/2012 03:14 AM, Bohuslav Kabrda wrote: >>>> One more email from me: >>>> I don't know if you have been following the discussion about the >>>> new Ruby Guidelines at the fpc ticket [1] or at the packaging list >>>> (mainly, see last 3 comments, which summarize current state), but >>>> this week (wednesday, 17:00 UTC), the fpc is going to finish the >>>> draft, vote on it and close it. Please, if anyone of you has >>>> something to add, write it to the ticket or come to the meeting, I >>>> myself am going to be there to discuss the remaining things. >>>> This is really the last chance to alter something, so I would >>>> highly appreciate if more of us could come to the meeting or at >>>> least support our opinions at the ticket. >>>> We've been trying hard to carry through as much of our draft as we >>>> could, together with Vit (who is now enjoying a well deserved >>>> vacation). I hope you will find our opinions on the fpc changes >>>> reasonable and will support us. (And if you don't find our >>>> opinions reasonable, there is still time to say so, at least.) >>>> >>>> Thanks a lot! >>>> >>> Hey guys really appreciate the hard effort. Will try to make the FPC >>> meeting (this is on #fedora-meeting-1 right). >>> >>> Just glancing over the new guidelines real quick, overall they look >>> good, but the extended bits to build gems does look like its going to >>> be >>> a PITA. I understand the reasoning behind it, but seems to add alot >>> of >>> overhead (and reading your last comment on the trac issue, will there >>> be >>> situations when it doesn't work?). Also would like to discuss some of >>> the other bits such as all rubygems providing ruby(libraryname) and >>> the >>> bits about interpreter independence. >>> >> Well, I agree with you on the building to be a great PITA, but fpc guys are >> pretty touchy about that one after last Vit's email on this on packaging >> list [1], so I guess we will have to accept that (from a certain point of >> view, they are right, but I still believe that our solution would be better, >> as I have stated in my last comment in the fpc ticket). >> As for the provides, I am thinking the same and I've been arguing about that >> with Toshio for a while. The problem he doesn't see is, that according to >> his proposal, we can have a non-gem library, which provides ruby(foo) and a >> rubygem-foo, which also provides ruby(foo), which will then result into >> unexpected behaviour when requiring ruby(foo). I also wrote that in my last >> comment on the fpc ticket and I will bring it up on the meeting. >> Finally, please expect some maybe-not-so-friendly atmosphere, because there >> were some heated discussions on the packaging list. The fpc members complain >> that we don't listen to them and want to do things our way, but they >> basically do the same - they changed the draft without understanding ruby >> (or consulting with us first) and in some cases they were very wrong, but >> still arguing about it in the way "Look, I don't understand Ruby, but...", >> which in turn made me and Vit very non-happy (which was expressed in our >> reactions ;)). I would however very much like to try to throw all that away >> and start all over with Ruby-SIG<->FPC relations (if someone form fpc reads >> this, yes, I know we have our differencies, but we have to work together, so >> let's calm down everybody and start again). >> >> > Understood, sometimes alot can be lost in translation over text based > communication as well (tone of voice is very important in conveying > emotion and feeling during dialog, something which gets lost in text). > > In any case, is the packaging meeting happening today? Unless I'm > totally off its 17:15UTC and I'm in #fedora-meeting-1 but it doesn't > seem to have started. > > -Mo > _______________________________________________ > ruby-sig mailing list > [email protected] > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
Doy I'm an hour off, good I'm early and not late though ;-) -Mo _______________________________________________ ruby-sig mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/ruby-sig
