From: Yusuke ENDOH Date: 2009-10-28T19:20:33+09:00 Subject: [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