On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Rodrigo Rosenfeld Rosas <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 07-12-2010 18:34, Michael Koziarski wrote: > >> I wanted to get the conversation started...what do people think? >>> >> Bundler's certainly done a great job of making it low-cost to add, >> install and upgrade gems that your app depends on. However without a >> pretty compelling *cost* to maintaining the existence of plugins, I >> don't really see what the upside is. >> >> For the odd small snippet of code you want to share amongst a few >> applications, plugins are a lovely lo-fi solution. Removing that >> would come with a pretty high hurdle, one much higher than "the code >> would be nicer" when, in reality, it's very little code to support >> them, 91 lines or so at present >> > > On the good side of keeping plugins, unless I'm missing something, it seems > easier for the developer to test (I'm not talking about automated tests) the > plugin in the development phase, before packaging it in a gem. But maybe I'm > just missing about how development could be easily tested when used as a > gem... > With bundler you can test your gem in development easily, just use :path in your Gemfile: gem 'xxx', :path => 'your local folder' Jan > > Rodrigo > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<rubyonrails-core%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en.
