From: hsbt@... Date: 2018-12-29T23:19:23+00:00 Subject: [ruby-core:90814] [Ruby trunk Misc#15487][Assigned] Clarify default gems maintanance policy Issue #15487 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA). Status changed from Open to Assigned Assignee set to hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) `json` is not a good example of default gems. Because I and nalsh got the only commit bit of `flori/json` at recently, not release a grant of rubygems.org. ---------------------------------------- Misc #15487: Clarify default gems maintanance policy https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15487#change-75992 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Assigned * Priority: Normal * Assignee: hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) ---------------------------------------- In addition to #15486, I'd like to raise the question of the general _maintanance policy_ for "default" Ruby gems, in particular: * who is responsible for each gem and how they should be contacted? * what are goals and policies for gems code quality and documentation? * where do default gems are discussed? * what are some promises/guarantees default gems maintainers try to fulfill? The most demonstrative example I'd like to point is `json` gem: * The source at [ruby/json](https://github.com/ruby/json) is NOT authoritative as far as I can tell, the authoritative one is [flori/json](https://github.com/flori/json) * The gem still holds signs of the times it was independent (`Pure` and `Ext` JSON implementations, but `Pure` is not copied into the `ruby/lib` on releases, rendering standard docs pretty weird), and has NO mention it is THE json gem of Ruby * The gem seems unmaintained, considering the amount of [PRs](https://github.com/flori/json/pulls) and [issues](https://github.com/flori/json/issues), lot of them without any reaction for months * When I tried to update JSON docs, in [core tracker issue](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14581) I was asked to make a PR to "upstream repository", but there, the PRs ([#347](https://github.com/flori/json/pull/347), [#349](https://github.com/flori/json/pull/349)) was simply ignored; Ruby 2.6 was released without new docs, despite the fact PRs were made at **March** and require almost no code review (unlike even some promising optimization PRs, that were also hanging there since Feb/Mar) It is just one unfortunate case (TBH, my experience with contributing to other libraries, like `csv` and `psych` was much smoother), but it demonstrates some common lack of transparency in maintaining of Ruby's standard library -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: