From: Hugh Sasse <hgs@...>
Date: 2005-09-30T22:12:49+09:00
Subject: Re: gems is a language change, not a pkging system

---559023410-838545539-1128085395=:11898
Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-559023410-838545539-1128085395=:11898"

  This message is in MIME format.  The first part should be readable text,
  while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools.

---559023410-838545539-1128085395=:11898
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=X-UNKNOWN; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE

CC'ed to Ruby-Talk because of the ToDoList page announcement at the
end.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005, Mauricio Fern=E1ndez wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 06:50:40PM +0900, Hugh Sasse wrote:
>
>> ...because now is the time to hammer them out, it seems to me?
>
> Earlier is better than later ;)
> Indeed, the longer it takes, the more code will be affected.
> Incidentally, the impact on upstream --- see below --- was the criterion
> I used to prioritize the proposed modifications. It is meant to be
> optimum in the sense that it minimizes the global amount of work
> required (from RubyGems developers, people packaging with RubyGems,
> external repackagers and end users).
>
>>> _why proposed a list [ruby-core:5877] and further refined it in
>>> [ruby-core:5950]; the latter incorporated items added by Chad Fowler
>>> [ruby-core:5880] and Jim Weirich, who also prioritized them in
>>> [ruby-core:5901], without specifying the sorting criteria, though.
>>> Austin Ziegler created the so far most detailed list [ruby-core:5882].
>>> I tried to assign priorities to the latter based on the impact on
>>> upstream code in [ruby-core:5890]. Unfortunately, the latter was largel=
y
>>> disregarded, but I'd appreciate constructive criticism.
>>
>> Most of this seemed (to me) to come from the Ruby rather than the
>> Repackager's side of things
>
> I see what you mean. However, it is important to avoid the
> Ruby//repackagers polarization: it'd be a pity if somebody was (mis)led

They are sometimes the same people. Agreed.
> into thinking that they're somehow antagonistic, which of course isn't
> true. I'm glad we have all managed to dissipate that impression.
>
>> I'm still puzzled about the use of the term upstream code.
>
> It's a term commonly used by packagers: they refer to the source code
> released by the library/application developer as "upstream". I guess the
> mental image is that the code moves down until it reaches the end user.

OK, that helps.

I have made an attempt to collect the main points people raised
here:

http://rubygarden.org/ruby?RubyGemsToDoList

Which Chad Fowler agreed to me doing.  The formatting is a bit iffy,
threre is no attribution -- it can be added but I thought it
wouldn't really help.  The list is not prioritized in any way yet.
As I'm not a developer of RubyGems though I try to provide useful
input, I think it isn't my place to prioritize.

Trying to get rid of invisible newlines is a nightmare.

Anyway, if you and others could look at this and kick and beat it
into shape, hopefully it will provide a useful focus for activity.
>
> --=20
> Mauricio Fernandez
>
>
         HTH
         Hugh

---559023410-838545539-1128085395=:11898--
---559023410-838545539-1128085395=:11898--