[#100309] How to use backport custom field — Jun Aruga <jaruga@...>
Please allow my ignorance.
9 messages
2020/10/06
[#100310] Re: How to use backport custom field
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2020/10/06
IkJhY2twb3J0IGN1c3RvbSBmaWVsZCIgaXMgb25seSBhdmFpbGFibGUgZm9yIHRpY2tldHMgd2hv
[#100311] Re: How to use backport custom field
— Jun Aruga <jaruga@...>
2020/10/06
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 4:44 PM NARUSE, Yui <naruse@airemix.jp> wrote:
[#100314] Re: How to use backport custom field
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2020/10/06
VGhhbmsgeW91IGZvciBjb25maXJtYXRpb24uCkkgY2hlY2tlZCBhZ2FpbiBhbmQgdG8gZWRpdCBi
[#100322] Re: How to use backport custom field
— Jun Aruga <jaruga@...>
2020/10/07
On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 7:25 PM NARUSE, Yui <naruse@airemix.jp> wrote:
[#100326] Re: How to use backport custom field
— "NARUSE, Yui" <naruse@...>
2020/10/07
SSBhZGRlZCB5b3UgdG8gIlJlcG9ydGVyIiByb2xlIGluIHRoZSBwcm9qZWN0CgoyMDIw5bm0MTDm
[#100327] Re: How to use backport custom field
— Jun Aruga <jaruga@...>
2020/10/07
On Wed, Oct 7, 2020 at 1:42 PM NARUSE, Yui <naruse@airemix.jp> wrote:
[ruby-core:100608] [Ruby master Misc#16778] Should we stop vendoring default gems code?
From:
eregontp@...
Date:
2020-10-27 17:17:36 UTC
List:
ruby-core #100608
Issue #16778 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze). There are many default gems (listed on https://stdgems.org/), so making the= m bundled gems is a not a good solution, it only works for subset of them. Anything transitively needed by RubyGems cannot be a bundled gem. ---------------------------------------- Misc #16778: Should we stop vendoring default gems code? https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16778#change-88239 * Author: deivid (David Rodr=EDguez) * Status: Rejected * Priority: Normal * Assignee: hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) ---------------------------------------- Currently ruby-core vendors all the code in default gems, and runs the test= s for each of them. Also, ruby-core continuously updates the vendored code of default gems to s= ync with the upstream repos. That's overhead work, not only from syncronizi= ng the code itself, but it also requires perfect syncronization of releases= to avoid including versions of default gems that are different from releas= ed versions. Also, this causes confusion for contributors because the code lives "duplic= ated" in two different places. Some times contributors will open a PR in th= e ruby-core repo, only to find out that they need to go to the upstream rep= o and contribute it in there. And this rule is not even always followed and= sometimes ruby-core contributors apply patches to the vendored code direct= ly (many times to fix test-only issues inherent to the different structure = of the core repository). These patches then need to be contributed back to = the upstream repo. I believe that all of that kind of defeats the point of "gemification" of t= he standard library. Once some ruby code its gemified, it should be the new upstream's responsab= ility to make sure the code works and it's properly tested, and ruby-core s= hould be free'd from that responsability. Maybe ruby-core could do something along the following lines: * Remove all the vendored code from default gems. * When this code is needed for internal tests, manage it as a development d= ependency, clone it as necessary on non source controlled locations, and us= e it from there. * Maybe a file similar to `gems/bundled_gems` can be added for default gems= indicating their versions and upstream repos, to ease things. * Upon `make install`, clone the proper version of each default library and= get it installed in the default $LOAD_PATH. * Maybe add some bare high level CI checks to ensure that all default libra= ries can be properly required after `make install`, and that their executab= les (if they include any) can also be run. This should bring several benefits to the development process: * No more duplicated code. * No more syncronization from upstream to ruby-core. * No more syncronization from ruby-core to upstream. * No more confusion around the canonical place to contribute. * No more complexities derived from the different organization of the code = depending on whether it lives in ruby-core or outside. = I believe jruby already does something like this so it'd be interesting to = get some input from them. If this is a direction the ruby-core team would like to take, I'm happy to = help @hsbt with small steps towards slowly approaching to this high level g= oal. -- = https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=3Dunsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>