[ruby-core:104079] [Ruby master Misc#16778] Should we stop vendoring default gems code?

Issue #16778 has been updated by deivid (David Rodr=EDguez).


> Are you talking about the code duplication of rubygems and bundler? This =
ticket is about default gems, isn't it?

Yes, I'm making a general case against maintaining the same code at two dif=
ferent places, but as I worded this issue, it would only apply to bundler (=
a default gem) but not to rubygems. So I'll stick to talking about bundler =
and other default gems in this ticket :+1: =


> Because @hsbt is promoting default gems to bundled gems step by step (for=
 example, #17873), I think this issue is being solved gradually.

Converting default gems to bundled gems indeed solves the issue. But I assu=
me there are many gems that you want always available with any ruby install=
ation, regardless of whether you use gems or not. Those default gems can't =
be migrated to bundled gems, so it can't be fixed that way.

> Do you seriously want to separete rubygems/bundler code base from ruby/ru=
by? It is much harder than default gems because they are integrated to the =
ruby core. Anyway I believe that it is a different topic from this ticket.

As per above, this ticket applies to bundler since it's a default gem. My p=
roposal is that bundler (and other default gems code) is not kept source co=
ntrolled in the ruby/ruby repository, yeah. That the code of each default g=
em is developed on each upstream repository, removing the need for any sync=
hronization.

----------------------------------------
Misc #16778: Should we stop vendoring default gems code?
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16778#change-92253

* 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:[e-mail]?subject=3Dunsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>