From: Leslie Viljoen Date: 2008-06-03T05:27:55+09:00 Subject: Re: Gems not working On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Michael T. Richter wrote: > On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 22:01 +0900, Tom Copeland wrote: > >> And yet another mailing list to sign up for? God DAMN! How about >> just a bug tracker somewhere? Is there an URL for that? I really >> don't want to increase my incoming mail any more than I already have >> it. :( > > Yup, there's the usual complement of RubyForge trackers and such here: > > http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems/ > > Thanks, Tom. Lack of sleep made me not even think about looking at > RubyForge. :( Sorry to repost this, but it should probably have been attached to this thread.... Wondering why the endless "bulk updating" takes so long I looked that the source a bit. There seems that if there are more than 50 gems missing from the quick list, a bulk update is done: source_index.rb: use_incremental = missing_gems.size <= INCREMENTAL_THRESHHOLD (INCREMENTAL_THRESHOLD is 50) ..yet it seems the quick list is always more than 50 gems out of date (for the bulk update seems to always be done) When downloading and extracting both lists, it look like there are 13464 gems listed in the bulk file and 13432 in the quick list. (For the curious, they are these files, compressed with zlib: http://gems.rubyforge.org/yaml.Z http://gems.rubyforge.org/quick/index.rz) This is a difference of 32 gems, but then perhaps some on the quick list are out of date? Or perhaps I got the numbers wrong? So to make things faster: -------------------------------- 1. Since the bulk index is 854k and expands to 20MB, perhaps there's a way to keep that quick index more up-to-date? 2. Only 3134 of the 13432 gems are unique gems - 10298 are older versions of these gems. I think that people rarely search or install old gems, so perhaps the list can be split into a file for latest versions versus old versions. 3. I often search for gems repeatedly, and the bulk index gets pulled down repeatedly - why not save this file locally for at least a few hours? (probably try to implement this myself just now) -- did this by now, but there seems to be an attempt at this already built-in. 4. Perhaps if the server is taking strain, a mirror or two could be set up? I doubt many people would care about such relatively small files on their servers - I'd be willing to ask some people if they'd do a ZA mirror. Any comments? Les