[#97678] [Ruby master Feature#16752] :private param for const_set — bughitgithub@...
Issue #16752 has been reported by bughit (bug hit).
5 messages
2020/04/02
[ruby-core:97961] [Ruby master Misc#16778] Should we stop vendoring default gems code?
From:
v.ondruch@...
Date:
2020-04-19 07:47:40 UTC
List:
ruby-core #97961
Issue #16778 has been updated by vo.x (Vit Ondruch). hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) wrote in #note-18: > 2. There is no plan to use git submodule for these issues. The ruby commi= ter can't push the master branch of the part of default gems contained ruby= gems. We need to push them for fixing CI of ruby interpreter. In fact, ruby= gems and bundler stop to use git submodule for similar issues. Is the issue that all the default gems lives on GH while Ruby has only GH m= irror? Anyway, if submodules are not an option, it would be much better if the gem= s are 1:1 copies of the upstream repositories. Currently, the upstream repo= sitories are split between various places, such as test and lib direcotires= , the .gemspec files are placed on completely random places (and modified),= the binaries are placed on different place and once again, the stubs are p= regenerated and differs from the stubs generated by RubyGems, the default g= ems does not have their READMEs and licenses included, etc. ---------------------------------------- Misc #16778: Should we stop vendoring default gems code? https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/16778#change-85190 * Author: deivid (David Rodr=EDguez) * Status: Assigned * Priority: Normal * Assignee: hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA) ---------------------------------------- Currently ruby-core vendors all the code in default gems, and runs the test= s for each of them. Also, ruby-core continuously updates the vendored code of default gems to s= ync with the upstream repos. That's overhead work, not only from syncronizi= ng the code itself, but it also requires perfect syncronization of releases= to avoid including versions of default gems that are different from releas= ed versions. Also, this causes confusion for contributors because the code lives "duplic= ated" in two different places. Some times contributors will open a PR in th= e ruby-core repo, only to find out that they need to go to the upstream rep= o and contribute it in there. And this rule is not even always followed and= sometimes ruby-core contributors apply patches to the vendored code direct= ly (many times to fix test-only issues inherent to the different structure = of the core repository). These patches then need to be contributed back to = the upstream repo. I believe that all of that kind of defeats the point of "gemification" of t= he standard library. Once some ruby code its gemified, it should be the new upstream's responsab= ility to make sure the code works and it's properly tested, and ruby-core s= hould be free'd from that responsability. Maybe ruby-core could do something along the following lines: * Remove all the vendored code from default gems. * When this code is needed for internal tests, manage it as a development d= ependency, clone it as necessary on non source controlled locations, and us= e it from there. * Maybe a file similar to `gems/bundled_gems` can be added for default gems= indicating their versions and upstream repos, to ease things. * Upon `make install`, clone the proper version of each default library and= get it installed in the default $LOAD_PATH. * Maybe add some bare high level CI checks to ensure that all default libra= ries can be properly required after `make install`, and that their executab= les (if they include any) can also be run. This should bring several benefits to the development process: * No more duplicated code. * No more syncronization from upstream to ruby-core. * No more syncronization from ruby-core to upstream. * No more confusion around the canonical place to contribute. * No more complexities derived from the different organization of the code = depending on whether it lives in ruby-core or outside. = I believe jruby already does something like this so it'd be interesting to = get some input from them. If this is a direction the ruby-core team would like to take, I'm happy to = help @hsbt with small steps towards slowly approaching to this high level g= oal. -- = https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=3Dunsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>