From: ptkwt@... (Phil Tomson) Date: 2004-03-17T08:39:34+09:00 Subject: Re: RAA - So much is broken In article <40577CFD.9060702@hellooperator.net>, Dick Davies wrote: >Chad Fowler wrote: >> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Hal Fulton wrote: >> >> # Chad Fowler wrote: >> # > # I could do http://raa.rubycentral.org and/or >http://raa.rubycentral.org. >> # > # The advantage is that they would be easy for people to remember even if >> # > # ruby-lang.org is down and there are no links. >> # > # >> # > >> # > or how about http://raa.rubycentral.org? ;) >> # > >> # > (I meant to include http://raa.rubygarden.org). >> # >> # I vote for all three. :P >> # >> # Actually, might it not be a good idea for things to migrate >> # gradually to rubyforge? >> # >> # AFAIK you don't have to use "all" its features just to use it >> # for storage. >> >> >> That's a mighty progressive though. If we're (the community) ready for >> it, I think it would be fantastic. No need for a separate RAA and >> RubyForge when RubyForge could be RAA.succ.succ. >> >> What do the RAA and RubyForge guys think? > (for some reason the parent of this post didn't show up in my newsfeed, so I'm replying to this one) (Ok, you didn't ask me, I'm in neither group mentioned, but I'll put in my 2cents anyway) Why not? This is a golden opportunity to see some real change since the RAA is in maintenance mode till the end of the month. It's worth a try. Lots of folks in the community have been waiting for RAA.succ for 2-3 years now. Now is not the time to be timid. ;-) If it works out, it'll be great for the community all around. If not, then maybe it's still a bit too early and the two (RAA and RubyForge_with_Gems) will coexist for some amount of time till one wins out over the other based on user support (I would think that RubyForge_with_Gems would eventually win because of the convenience, but who knows?) "To ask permission is to seek denial" -- Usually attributed to Scott McNeally, but I'm sure he was quoting someone. Phil