On Mar 11, 2011, at 5:28 PM, Ryan Davis wrote: > > On Mar 3, 2011, at 20:10 , Erik Hollensbe wrote: > >> I have some change proposals which will probably impact this rather >> significantly that I've been toying around with, e.g.: >> >> https://gist.github.com/22fa600b8c98bdf8c785 >> >> It seems like implementing this would cover a lot of similar ground in >> spots. Is there a chance we can talk about how this fits in (or if it does >> at all) at some point? I was going to be drumming up a patch this weekend to >> integrate it for your guys' review, per a conversation with Eric and Evan. > > As discussed in IRC, I don't think these changes will have much, if any, > impact on the work I have in mind. Most of my stuff is on the modeling side > and doesn't care about the filesystem. I think this work could be done in > parallel w/o too many collisions.
OK, excellent. I would really like it (it's a short read) if you could read the path-support diff as well, (I think) it solves some of your previous concerns expressed about GEM_HOME and pals. A preliminary sign-off, if you have time, before I go in neck-deep would really ease my mind. Top of this file: https://github.com/erikh/rubygems/blob/path-support/lib/rubygems/file_system.rb Integration is mostly there, but I didn't want to proceed on this because this is going to be a much bigger hit than the Gem::FS stuff, which is already going to be pretty large. There is one failing test in this branch; it's been a busy week and I haven't had time to track it down. -Erik _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
