[ruby-core:26484] Re: suggestion: gems.ruby-lang.org

Hi,

2009/11/2 "Martin J. Durst" <[e-mail]>:
>> "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"
>>
>> This will create more confusion.
>
> Not only that, it will also create more work for the core team. Several
> standard libraries had to be removed because we didn't find maintainers. If
> we can't keep standard libraries in good shape, then I'm not sure we can
> take on the work of taking care of (semi)official gems.

I expect work of the core team to be reduced because of two reasons.

First, separating official gems will make clear the scope of the
responsibilities.  The core team can focus on the core.  The gem
maintainers can focus on their gem.  This allows new maintainer
for each official gem to appear easily.

Second, the core team has to test the official gems after the core
is frozen, but is not obligated to fix their bugs.  Each maintainer
must fix them.  If there is no maintainer, anyone does not fix, or
if the fix misses the release, the gem will sadly drop out from the
official repository.  This rule ensures the reliability of the
official repository (the gems will work correctly as long as it
belongs to the official gems), but it may reduce the availability
(the gems will be available in the future).  So we should not use
the rule unless it is necessary.
(Of course, the core team may fix bugs of the gems even if they are
not obligated.)

-- 
Yusuke ENDOH <[e-mail]>