From: Eivind Eklund <eeklund@...>
Date: 2004-10-28T04:03:15+09:00
Subject: Re: Gems as key? Re: The real Ruby vs. Python.

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:48:07 +0000, Eivind Eklund <eeklund@gmail.com> wrote:
> > and if RPA could then also take on the role of Release Manager for
> > Ruby itself.
> 
> We may be willing to do this, but

... oops - lost the end of this - "but we presently do not have the
resources where I think we could do this well."

Continuing with a comment from T.Onoma:
> Seems to me it would be best of Gems team and RPA team really worked 
> hard together to create shared framework. Gems serving as a general 
> packagingframework and the idea of RPA becoming QC would be a real 
> boon for Ruby.

As I've said elsewhere: The problem is that the goals of RPA is
already quite ambitious, and that we feel we need to "own" the
packaging infrastructure for our packages.  There are several of the
things we do right now that requires us to hack that infrastructure.

Doing RPA without controlling the packaging infrastructure is
something that I think would result in quite a lot worse result.  A
result so much worse that you'd lose the motivation that drives the
RPA team.  And then we'd be back at square one.

Eivind.
-- 
Hazzle free packages for Ruby?
RPA is available from http://www.rubyarchive.org/