From: Gregory Seidman <gsslist+ruby@...>
Date: 2007-01-13T09:34:29+09:00
Subject: Re: Tattle - The Ruby Census

On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 09:30:34AM +0900, Chris Carter wrote:
> On 1/12/07, Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On 1/12/07, Jeremy McAnally <jeremymcanally@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> But the question is would the hoe developers use this?  They seem
> >> fairly stuck on this whole idempotentence kick.
> >
> >I'm pretty sure that one of the messages in the last ~90 or so
> >indicated that were optional dependencies available, hoe would use it.
> >
> >It wouldn't help for anyone who already has hoe-generated gems, of course.
> >
> >You may not realize it, but you want idempotence, too. One of the
> >things that can be done with an idempotent gem is that you can
> >validate a gem on a development server, and then you can repackage and
> >redeploy that gem on a production server without redownloading it from
> >the original site.
> >
> >There's still some work to be done on RubyGems to make this truly
> >possible without hacks (local installs don't really handle
> >dependencies well, plus a few other things), but without idempotence,
> >you're not guaranteed to have everything you need to do that.
> >
> >-austin
[...]
> So if I were to spend this weekend getting optional/developer-time
> dependencies into RubyGems, would people want optional dependencies to
> always be prompted, only prompted when a flag is given, or never
> prompted?

Default: no prompt, no install
-Y: no prompt, install
--optional-dependencies: prompt

> Chris Carter
--Greg