From: Ben Giddings <bg-rubytalk@...>
Date: 2005-03-04T05:02:52+09:00
Subject: Re: RAA Status & b

Curt Hibbs wrote:
> I pretty much agree with your assessment, but I think one more thing is
> needed. There needs to be of ranking and commenting on libraries (the way
> one might do with books on amazon). This would be just as useful on
> RubyForge as it would be on RAA.

When I saw the description of the problem, I immediately thought of how 
the same is true of Sourceforge, but how one of the first things I look 
for on a new Sourceforge project page is the "activity percentile" and 
the last update.

Does RubyForge have similar features?  If not, how hard would it be to 
add to RubyForge some automated way of deciding how reliable a library 
is likely to be based on a combination of:
* when it was last updated
* when it was first created
* how many people use (download) it

IMHO, as a relatively new, English-speaking Ruby programmer, I'd say 
"dump RAA, use RubyForge, dump RPA, use RubyGems".  Any features that 
are not in RubyGems that are in RPA could probably be put in there... 
though they are different goals.  I think growing the already-successful 
RubyGems is the easier, and more natural solution.

As for RAA vs RubyForge, RAA may be actively used by our Japanese 
friends, but unless they need it, it seems like it's really broken and 
maybe shouldn't be fixed.

Ben