On Dec 23, 2010, at 01:08, Trans wrote: > I thought RubyGems was supposed to be so *conservative* about changes, > and here a change is just going to be pushed that breaks people's > plugins for the sake of a speed up for those who have 500+ gems > installed?
I thought adding plugins this way would be conservative. It turns out I was mistaken. We're fixing a performance bug. > Overlooking the fact that there other solutions to deal with large gem > collections, like rvm's gemsets. Why wouldn't the prudent course of > action be to actually fix this _correctly now_, rather than implement > a "phase 1" change that will leave certain types of plugins out in the > cold for who knows how long? Shortly after I added scanning for rubygems_plugins.rb I found it was the incorrect solution as it is not granular. > If that's asking too much, then at the very least, make this patch a > configurable option in the .gemrc file. Power users who aren't using > any of the above mentioned plugins could then easily flip the switch > to get the speed up. We should make a release that contains this change RubyGems 2.0 as this changes an API. _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
