On 10 Oct 2010, at 22:38, Luis Lavena wrote: > Hey guys, > > Over the past months things have been very quiet in the RubyGems front. > > Nothing has been planned beyond 1.3.7 release and several new bug > reports, patches, pull request and others have been entered in > RubyForge and GitHub without a single reply from you guys.
It's on my list, but I have to do some rack stuff first and time is limited. > In case some of you missed, I've tried bring to attention 2 pull > request, but nobody except James or John replied to them. > > So I've been wondering: what is going on? -- this goes specially to > Eric, who is lead and maintainer of RubyGems -- are you too busy? I certainly am, I can't talk for others. > Perhaps your work, life or dunno what is not letting you do anything, > but will be great we know about it so we can take a bit more > responsibility and take out the pressure of your shoulders. > > We all have our projects and we drive them as we want, but I believe > RubyGems differs from those pet projects since is now considered part > of Ruby. Yes, and there are things that are critical to that which need to be addressed immediately that are not being addressed in the pull requests. See my notes on the wiki and in the various discussions on ruby-core. Things like progress bars really don't concern me in light of these issues I'm afraid. > I'm reluctant to introduce changes to RubyGems without your blessing > or at least a Roadmap/plan for the project. This differs from my pet > projects where I can take things in any direction. Well, the critical thing in my opinion is that we try to reduce the volume of recent breakage. I'm also still concerned that we're releasing multiple code bases under the same version. I don't like having to check backtraces from customers by asking them to do a "wc -l `gem which rubygems`". > I know you don't owe us anything, but please take 5 minutes to let us > know what are your thoughts on this. > > Pressure on RubyGems might start building up as newer 1.9.2-p0 release > start taking shape. I personally would like to avoid what happen with > 0.9.5 and what almost happen with final 1.9.2-p0 Actually, with the way that integration works (another thing I'd like to address), upgrading rubygems seems to have some errors. This also reaches back into gemcutter, whereby I am concerned that we cannot continue to make sweeping changes like just turning off indexes without breaking versions. If this becomes the case for 1.9.2 before it's even in use as a mainstream version, that would be very sad. This is also (personally) my concern with opening up the project too fast, patches need to have some serious thought put into them with regard to portability and longevity. As you note yourself, this project services quite a wide scope, and that should be addressed. > Thank you for your time. HTH _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
