On Sep 29, 2010, at 14:55 , Luis Lavena wrote: > On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 6:51 PM, James Tucker <jftuc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 29 Sep 2010, at 18:31, Luis Lavena wrote: >>> >>> But, if you want it fixed, you can fork it and send the pull request, >>> I would love to review it and if it works, happy to merge it. >> >> I would be wary to merge in any update to this feature that doesn't fix the >> issues of the style I just highlighted. In fact, it should pass all of the >> dependency collision spec examples that you might find in the bundler >> resolver tests. If it doesn't, it's basically broken. >> >> As we don't have users using this feature, and it's broken, I would suggest >> it should be removed by the next major release unless someone has fixed it. > > Point taken, I believe it was obvious but just to clarify: review will > use bundler complex dependency resolution as comparison for approval.
I've been talking to Eric about the possibility of merging Isolate into rubygems and he's agreed that it is a good idea. I think in light of that we can remove gem lock entirely and have a cleaner overall impl. It is old and busted and nobody actually uses it to the best of our knowledge so me might as well put a bullet in it. _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
