From: David Ross Date: 2004-08-13T22:53:05+09:00 Subject: Re: RubyForge project and gem distriubtion > > I think you missed the point about the orimary > functionality of rpa being > orthogonal to RubyGems. Just as Rails built itself > on top of webrick, rpa > could have built itself on top of rubygems. > I have to disagree. Batsman has plans for rpa-base and how they are packaged. RubyGems would not even follow the way batsman is going. Also, I suppose rpa-base could temporarily use rubygems packages, but again, batsman has a bigger, better vision. He has studied package managers for the past 6 months. He studied the mistakes they make, how they could be better, and how they work. Also to bring to attention. Batsman generously gave RubyGems part of the package scheme code. Wasn't that nice of him? :) > Same point as above, rpa could provide those > advantage as a layer over > rubygems without having to reinvent the distribution > layer. The fact that batsman wants a QA like team as what debian has cancels *any* possibility of this happening. > > I don't see how having this discussion stifles > development. On the contrary, > I think it is very healthy. I have to agree. As I said on the first email. It is a constructive critique. I suppose I could have stated the first email better, "I have to comment on how gem automation on rubyforge is a security hazard" might have been better. It could have sounded like I might have been "trolling." I don't know why every time I say something wether it be IRC, email, real life.. it always spins off to take hours to finish. > > Curt > > > ---------------------------------- -- Name: David Ross -- Phone: 865.539.3798 -- Email: drossruby [at] yahoo.com ---------------------------------- __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail