From: James Tucker <jftucker@...>
Date: 2010-07-06T19:46:10+09:00
Subject: [ruby-core:31078] Re: [Bug #3140] gem activation has changed between 1.8 and 1.9


On 6 Jul 2010, at 11:38, Run Paint Run Run wrote:

> Issue #3140 has been updated by Run Paint Run Run.
> 
> 
>> I don't agree, this is forcing people to add require 'rubygems' to their code,
>> which is unacceptable as well. Introducing broken semantics into the core
>> language will add support load to rubygems, bundler, debian, rails, and a
>> bunch of other places. 
> 
> We're talking at cross purposes. Prior to 1.9, people already had to add `require 'rubygems'` to their code before requiring a gem. Therefore, given that 1.9.2 will be the first viable 1.9 release, the compulsion is precisely the same as before: on 1.8 and 1.9.2 users will be "forced" to `require 'rubygems'` before loading a gem under traditional semantics. Nothing has changed in this regard.

But users are no longer forced to require rubygems, instead they will hit bugs, and then, due to the nature of most users, they will add those lines to their code, when in reality, it would be better if they use $RUBYOPT or the like. This means that pain is added to their workflow, that is all. It also means (and I'll put good money on this) that a lot of people will backlash and do exactly as you suggest, and actually add `require 'rubygems'` to their runtime code, which is a bad practice.

>> There is more than can be done in this direction... [deletia]
> 
> Which is also what I said. Nobody is suggesting that the current patch is anything approaching ideal. If your proposal meets the myriad requirements, then it will indeed be a welcome replacement.

Can someone summarise those requirements so I can make sure I don't miss any?