From: Ryan Davis <ryand-ruby@...>
Date: 2007-07-18T00:35:24+09:00
Subject: Re: Import gem to Ruby 1.9


On Jul 17, 2007, at 01:26 , NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:

> Are you and RubyGems maintainers negative to include RubyGems in
> ruby/1.9.1 ?

No, I don't think we are. We just have that one feature that we  
really need before rubygems is more or less considered feature  
complete. After that there are some bug fixes and other things that  
need to go in, but I'm guessing that'd work out fairly well with the  
ruby 1.9.1 timeframe.

> I have a plan to propose unbundling some libraries such as soap4r, tk,
> webrick, json, etc.  Maintainer-less libraries such as yaml should be
> unbundled, too (bear in mind that I'm talking about ruby/1.9).  It can
> be a gem when RubyGems is bundled in MRI.  It can be a package of
> another packaging system(deb, rpm, etc.), too.  Users will use  
> favorite
> packaging system then.

I think this is wonderful. Too long has there been a lot of cruft in  
ruby. This will let meritocracy take over. Ownerless libraries should  
still probably be released in the ruby project on rubyforge tho so  
they can still be represented in terms of ticket tracking and the like.

> Do you mean RubyGems can be a gem?  Looks smart.

No, I don't think that was implied, just that by being independent of  
ruby, we can release more and faster than ruby can. For example, here  
have already been 5 releases of rubygems and only 1 of ruby this  
year. Two of those releases were after the ruby release, so they  
would have been postponed.

Once rubygems stabilizes it shouldn't be as much of an issue. I  
suspect that the timeframes will work out pretty well.