[ruby-core:26388] suggestion: gems.ruby-lang.org

Hi --

I, as one user of ruby and rubygems, want to suggest establishing
the official repository of rubygems.


I'm surprised to hear that gems.rubyforge.org will be stood down.
I thought two lessons.

* `stable gems' repository
I have felt a distinction between the role of gems.rubyforge.org
and gems.github.com; the former provided stable gems and the
latter did unstable or development version of gems.

Though this distinction was not strict because it may have been
made by accident, it was actually useful (for me, at least).

GemCutter will play a role in development gem repository.  So
stable gem repository is needed.


* `dependable' repository
The default repository of rubygems should be dependable because
it is now a part of ruby.  It should not be changed so easily.

The core team and rubyforge are separate entities, so rubyforge
has the right to determine the elimination and consolidation of
gems.rubyforge.org.  But if they do so easily (without prior
consultation with the core team), I think that the repository is
not dependable for the official ruby.

Please don't consider I'm blaming rubyforge.  I'd like to just
say that rubygems can depend upon the external resource only if
it is dependable.


With these lessons, I'd like to make a suggestion for the future.

Why don't we prepare gems.ruby-lang.org as the default and official
source of rubygems?  It provides `ruby semi-standard libraries'
under the following two rules:

- only stable and well-selected gems are put there

- the gems will be tested by the core team before releasing ruby

Because of the rules, the gems will always work on the newest
ruby, which allow users to depend on them.  In addition, ruby core
package can become slim by moving nonessential standard libraries
like tk, drb, gdbm, base64, curses, etc.

I think that the biggest problem is human-resource, IOW, who will
establish and maintain gems.ruby-lang.org? :-)


What do you think?

-- 
Yusuke ENDOH <[e-mail]>