From: Sam Roberts <sroberts@...>
Date: 2005-03-04T14:08:31+09:00
Subject: Re: RAA Status & b

Quoting bitserf@gmail.com, on Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 02:04:51PM +0900:
> On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 03:37:54 +0900, James Britt
> I disagree strongly with this "dump the RAA" verdict. 

> If it was up to date, and had mirroring capabilities, it would serve
> as an excellent directory and central download repository for
> anything, including .gem/.rpa. RAA's virtue is its extreme simplicity.
> In terms of browsing software, and finding something quickly, its UI
> beats RubyForge hands down.

++100

> My major beef with the RubyForge/GForge/SourceForge is that for every
> single project you register, the assumption is made that you want the
> entire set of project lifecycle features, and clutters your project
> page with every single feature of the software. To me, thats  worse.

I agree. In fairness, a lot of the features can be turned off by the
project admins, but most don't, and its still noisy.

> I'm not saying its not providing a valuable service. But trying to
> provide everything to everyone has never seemed to work out in the
> real world. What is RubyForge's core valuable feature? An SCM
> repository, mailing lists, and a Wiki, and stats/news on the
> registered projects, and central downloads.
> 
> So why not add mirroring capabilities to RAA and have RubyForge focus
> on the things that make it useful? And have RAA be the directory, with
> RubyForge having being taught to speak to RAA.

Yes!

Sam