From: Chad Fowler <chad@...>
Date: 2004-03-13T04:30:41+09:00
Subject: Re: raa-install or RubyGems in 1.8? (evolution or revolution?)

On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, James Britt wrote:

# Phil Tomson wrote:
# > 
# > Isn't the advantage of raa-install that it works with the current RAA?
# >  Wouldn't Rubygems require a whole new infrastructure? (or at least
# > the creation of a gem file for each package in the RAA)
# > 
# > I agree that longterm RubyGems seems like the better way to go from a
# > technical standpoint, but these things tend to be evolutionary rather
# > than revolutionary.  If raa-install works well with the current system
# > it has a survival advantage over RubyGems.  If I'm understanding
# > correctly, RubyGems requires every package owner to repackage their
# > packages as Gems - well, how many people are going to do that in a
# > timely fashion?  (If I'm misunderstanding how RubyGems works then
# > please correct me)
# > 
# > RubyGems sounds great, but I'm afraid it requires a revolution and I
# > don't even see anyone out trying to stir up that revolution at this
# > point.  Where are the RubyGem advocates?
# 
# 
# Part of the problem with RubyGems adoption may be that there has yet to 
# be an actual release:
# 
# http://rubyforge.org/project/showfiles.php?group_id=126
# 
# Yes, you can fetch the files from the rubyforge CVS, but the impression 
# may be that the code is still quite alpha; time invested in using 
# RubyGems may be wasted (or need be repeated) as the code base is unstable.

You're right, James.  Without a release, it's had to justify spending 
time and energy on gem-ifying your code.  We're going to correct that.

Chad