[rspec-devel] require 'rubygems'
scott at railsnewbie.com
Wed Mar 25 22:56:03 EDT 2009
David Chelimsky wrote:
> Hey all,
> I'd like your feedback on something before I merge it into master.
> Before the 1.2 release I read http://gist.github.com/54177, in which
> Ryan Tomayko explains why "require 'rubygems'" should not appear in
> your library code. This made some sense to me. So much so, that I
> yanked it from rspec for the 1.2 release.
> Then the bug reports started coming in and some conversation led me to
> believe that this had been a mistake because it caused pain for the
> lion's share of rspec users because most libraries go ahead and
> require 'rubygems', so that has become the defacto standard situation,
> for better or worse.
> The solution that I added to 1.2.1 was to reinstate "require
> 'rubygems'" but with a catch:
> require 'rubygems' unless ENV['NO_RUBYGEMS']
How are others normally loading libraries without rubygems? Are most
writing wrapper scripts or setting the RUBYOPT environment variable as
Ryan points out in his post?
> This seemed like a fair tradeoff, since it allowed those who didn't
> want to have to think about it to just use rspec as/is, and those who
> do care and don't use rubygems in any given environment had an out.
> I've just received another report about that decision, with a patch,
> that offers what I think is a better solution:
> I've pushed Tobias' patch to a require-rubygems branch for the moment.
> I'm inclined to merge it into master, but this would the third release
> in a row that makes changes to how rspec handles rubygems, and I want
> it to be the last. So please let me know your thoughts, for or
> rspec-devel mailing list
> rspec-devel at rubyforge.org
More information about the rspec-devel