From: Martin DeMello <martindemello@...>
Date: 2010-08-06T14:36:41+09:00
Subject: Re: Project name ownership and conflict

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:57 AM, James Britt <james.britt@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I suggest you call your gem something like improved-clockwork or
> better-clockwork or kick-ass-clockwork. :)


clockwork2 should solve the issue neatly, though it leads to the
prospect of a suffix arms race :)

> The name problem I've seen more often is when someone uses a generic name
> for a project (e.g. "xml-parser" "twitter", 'json'; BTW, these are just
> examples to show the kind of names, not selected because of anything to do
> with any real gems).
>
> Then the project falls into limbo, or maybe the code sucks.  People looking
> for suitable gems for, say, XML or twitter or json, will inevitable first
> use the generic gem, even if it's not supported or any good.

yeah, ruby could really use some sort of central site where people can
rate and comment on gems, tagged and categorised by function. this
would solve the issue in much the same way that google made domain
names that much less valuable.

martin