From: Chad Fowler <chadfowler@...>
Date: 2004-08-14T00:03:03+09:00
Subject: Re: RubyForge project and gem distriubtion

On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 23:51:39 +0900, Curt Hibbs <curt@hibbs.com> wrote:
> vruz wrote:
> >
> > > Same point as above, rpa could provide those advantage as a layer over
> > > rubygems without having to reinvent the distribution layer.
> >
> > Please count the lines of code Mauricio Fernandez has kindly
> > provided to the Rubygems project.
> > (if that's possible, not sure who applied the code on behalf of him,
> > or under which user account he did that)
> >
> > Add other patches Mauricio Fernandez has provided to the Rubygems
> > team, but were (quickly) dismissed,  and  later reimplemented by
> > the Rubygems team.
> >
> > Compare this number to the total lines of code in Ruybgems.
> >
> > The fact that a given person opts to have a low-profile personality
> > and tries not to offend a team of professional programmers by
> > patching a great deal of the code they have wrote,  is not IMHO
> > a valid reason why  he should submit himself to the guidelines
> > and  work processes of a given project.
> 
> No doubt, this is excellent and commendable!
> 
> > To my knowledge, Rubygems is not a blessed standard as it still claims
> > to be, and it's a rather uncomfortable practice within an open-source
> > community when people try to impose something that clearly doesn't
> > fit their purposes, interests, likes or dislikes.
> 
> RubyGems aspires to be a standard, but has never claimed to be one.
> 

The project description on RubyForge could actually be taken as a
claim, though its spirit was more about stating a goal.  And, at the
time it was created, there was no sign that anyone was competing for
that right. :)

Chad