From: Eric Hodel Date: 2007-02-06T04:03:40+09:00 Subject: Re: Contributing back to the source (Was: Gem Namespaces) On Feb 3, 2007, at 17:37, Trans wrote: > On Feb 3, 7:55 pm, Eric Hodel wrote: >> On Feb 3, 2007, at 11:02, Trans wrote: >> >>> I have my own rendition of rubyforge.rb that I made based on the >>> Ara's original. This script used to be tucked away in the Reap >>> project, but I'm reorgainizing my tools >>> and I was thinking of releasing this separately. But what wll I >>> call it since "rubyforge" is already used? Are other's going to be >>> happy if I call it "rubyforge2" ? >> >> Why don't you instead adapt your changes into a patch and file it in >> the codeforpeople tracker? There's no sense in having an extra >> version lying around just because you added one or two things. > > It not just one or two things, though. It's a good bit different in > how it deals with config information. Mine was based on pre 0.0.0 > version and I made modification in scraping project information too > but in a very different way than codeforpeople, ie. it doesn't require > the setup stage, but scrapes the info on the fly and just logs in > automatically when you do stuff. I'd be happy to contribute it, but it > is a significant shift in functionality (though the fundamentals are > still the same -- for example I recently reused the URI and post news > code from the lastest codeforpeople version quite easily). Ryan implemented an auto-config, but still as a separate stage... It would have been nice to know about your patch before we did it. I'd still take a look. > Aside, I sort of wish it didn't use HTTPAccess2, it seems quite a > hefty lib for what rubyforge.rb is using it for. But I'm not sure, > maybe there's no better option. HTTPAccess2 has sessions stuff built-in. *shrug*.