michael.letterle at gmail.com
Sat Oct 23 19:57:51 EDT 2010
FWIW having separate IronRuby, IronPython, and Common repos that are
sub moduled(is that a word?) would make sense, that way changes that
are done in Common by both people working on Ruby and Python are
easily shared.. the current configuration feels.. fragile.
Perhaps the BEST thing to do is to layout what a more reasonable
structure could look like in concrete terms rather then just
complaining about the current setup.
The repo in general needs some love though, build instructions should
be in the README, and the current layout could use some explanations,
some files that seem to be needed are incorrect or in places different
than project files expect (specifically thinking of App.config here)
I think the fundamental problem is the current repo was never really
put together with the idea of someone coming in blind to it.. the only
way to change that is to.. well start changing it. :)
On the subject of the rake tasks, when the rake files were originally
there xbuild was nowhere near the state it is now, and it WAS a pain
to maintain, especially across platforms, we probably should have some
linux scripts to call xbuild though.
The most important thing, in my opinion, is that these discussions are
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Mike Moore <blowmage at gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't want a confrontation, I was just trying to voice some concerns I
> have. If everyone is in agreement that the way things have been done is the
> best way they could have possibly been done, and that nothing should be
> changed now that the project owners and the rules for making contributions
> are fundamentally different, then by all means continue.
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Ryan Riley <ryan.riley at panesofglass.org>
>> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Mike Moore <blowmage at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 23, 2010, at 1:30 AM, Tomas Matousek
>>> <Tomas.Matousek at microsoft.com> wrote:
>>> I don’t understand how three distinct github repos that I need to map
>>> into some directories on my disk whose relative location to each other is
>>> hardcoded in some scripts in each are better than a single repo that has a
>>> well-defined structure.
>>> You are speaking like someone responsible for both languages and the DLR.
>> And you are speaking like someone who has tried hard several times to
>> contribute to IronRuby and failed because of a bloated project structure.
>> I'm sure there are several people who would be willing to help you figure
>> out what's wrong. Where's the repo with your contribution?
> I don't understand. Is this some sort of challenge?
>>> I'm making a suggestion as someone really only interested in IronRuby.
>>> The repo isn't called "DynamicLanguages", it's called "IronRuby", which is
>>> at best confusing. If only git had some way to define a link to another
>>> repository as some sort of sub module...
>> Ah yes, and if only github had something like forking ...
> I don't think changing the structure in forked repos would do anyone any
> good, as it would make sharing contributions between repos difficult.
>>> As a Rubyist I'd like to run a rake task to build to each defined target
>>> and run the RubySpecs. It wouldn't replace xbuild, just automate it. I don't
>>> understand the pushback to this idea.
>> If you want to create and maintain these, I'm sure no one would complain.
>> I don't understand the push back to the idea that the three core
>> contributors were a little tired of building IronRuby and maintaining two
>> build approaches. I also don't understand a Rubyist's failure to see an
>> opportunity to contribute rake tasks to a project.
> I think you are confused to where I am puzzled about resistance. It is not
> about having rake tasks. I agree that they are easy enough to add and
> maintain, and that whining about them would be quite ridiculous. That's not
> my point, however. My point is that there would be more contributions if it
> were not a single monolithic repository. I also think most of the historic
> benefits of having a monolithic repo can be mitigated with submodules and an
> automated build and integration server.
> Feel free to disagree.
>>> Why not make a dedicated repo for IronRuby free of the ancillary projects
>>> and geared to someone like me? And likewise make the IronPython repo
>>> friendly to our Pythonic friends?
>> IronPython already has a separate repo at
> I dunno, it looks really, really similar to the IronRuby repo on GitHub to
> me. Is this synched with the GitHub repo? Is this where all the "Project
> Merlin" changes are coming from?
> Ironruby-core mailing list
> Ironruby-core at rubyforge.org
More information about the Ironruby-core