[ruby-core:26421] Re: suggestion: gems.ruby-lang.org

Hi,

2009/10/30 Aaron Patterson <[e-mail]>:
>> Do you worry that development of gem in "blessed" repository will
>> become inactive?  I said that only already-stable gems are put in
>> the repository.
>
> Who would choose those gems?  Presumably not the author.

Maybe the core team (and matz) will.  It's `semi-standard library.'


> That means it
> will take time for an author to request that their gem become part of
> the "stable" repository, then time for the gem to become approved.

Yes.  It will take lots of hard work.  It will be as hard as (or a bit
less than) work that you request that your library become standard
library.  This work will ensure the dependability of gems.ruby-lang.org.


> Increasing the difficulty for gem publishing will cause stagnation.  Why
> would I try to get my gem in the stable repository if it takes more work?
> Why send updates to the stable repository if it takes more work?

You can publish your gems in GemCutter conventionally, which never
causes stagnation of your gems.  Rather, such actively-developed
gems SHOULD be put in GemCutter.

If anyone suggests importing your gems to gems.ruby-lang.org and the
core team considers your gems as enough stable and important for
ruby, your gems may be imported to gems.ruby-lang.org.  If you don't
want, of course you can reject it.  It's the same as standard library.


>> I think so.  You said "so many repositories to choose!", but just two
>> repositories.  The stable, official and default repository, and actively
>> developped one.  I hate to choose so many wheat and chaff gems from one
>> gem repository, like CPAN.
>
> Who will do the work to determine stability?

The core team.

> Would you trust that person?

I do.  If you don't trust the core team, you should not use standard
library :-)

> Will that person be looking for new and better gems to add to
> the stable repository?  How will authors make sure their gem updates
> get added to the stable repository?  What are the criteria for
> determining that a gem is "good enough" to join the stable repository.

Good questions.  I'd like to ask the same questions about the
standard library.  These are not problems that newly occur.  It is
good to clarify the rule even if gems.r.o is rejected.


> Picking wheat from chaff is the price you pay for competition among
> libraries.

I'm slightly tired to say "it seems to be wheat, but it does not work
on the recent 1.9!"

You blame the core team for changing the spec?  But in fact, the core
team often estimates the impact of change by examining the standard
library.  The standard library also plays the role in the regression
tests to find unexpected change.  I expect gems.ruby-lang.org to also
enhance this effect.

-- 
Yusuke ENDOH <[e-mail]>