On Feb 1, 2008, at 04:02 AM, Hugh Sasse wrote: > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Eric Hodel wrote: >> On Feb 1, 2008, at 02:23 AM, Hugh Sasse wrote: >>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Mark Hubbart wrote: >>>>>> Plus one might not have a rubyforge project. >>>>> >>> [...] >>>> The "real" project could be on sourceforge.org, or code.google.com. >>> >>> Maybe there needs to a directive to say whwere the project is? >> >> There is also a #homepage= for Gem::Specification, but with the >> current gem repository, this is a bikeshed objection as under 1% of >> gems are published without a rubyforge project. > > I'd agree the default is correct most of the time, but there are a > lot of gems now, so 1% is not insignificant. I don't see that > arguing for choice is a bikeshed argument. If you argue that too > much code will have to change to support this, that it is the thin > end of a long wedge (multiple mirror sites will come next!) that it > would make the gemspec more brittle as it depends on more > information, or that the suggestion is otherwise malformed, then > fair enough. It was a suggestion offered in the hope that someone > might say "I have a better idea:...". Is there a wishlist to which > this might be added? Maybe *I'm* taking your use of the word > "bikeshed" too seriously! I'm really only trying to help suggest a > "fix" for a known edge case, I'm not saying things are fundamentally > wrong, because clearly gems have been marvellous for ages.
I say it's a bikeshed argument as it only affects gem authors who don't publish on rubyforge, and none of them have complained about it, and people are complaining for such a person who might exist, maybe. I've asked Tom for the number of gems that are added to the repository manually, just to be sure. _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
