[Rubygems-developers] Roadmap for version 0.8.12

Chad Fowler chad at chadfowler.com
Tue Jul 19 07:13:51 EDT 2005

On 18-Jul-05, at 10:13 AM, Assaph Mehr wrote:

> Hi,
> Just wanted to say thank you for your efforts, and donate a couple  
> of cents :-)
>>> (A) There is a date in the gemspec.  Should the algorithm use the
>>>     gemspec date, or the date of the file in the file system?
>> I would use the gemspec date.
> Wouldn't you then be relying on gem authors doing the right thing?
> Wouldn't it be better to track when the gem file was actually uploaded
> to the system and you started tracking it?

Perhaps, though there are gems that might sit out on a non-rubyforge  
location for some time before being added to the central repo.  The  
ramifications of either direction on this aren't too huge, so I guess  
it's a bit of a
nitpicky thing to argue to heavily. :)  By that I mean that I  
wouldn't defend use of the gemspec date too strongly if there was  
reasonable objection to it.

>> * All gems uploaded in the last M months are directly available.
>> * At least min(N,V) versions of a gem are available (where V is total
>>  number of versions uploaded)
> I'd also suggest keeping the last minor version of each major version
> series. E.g. RedCloth - keeping 2.0.11 as well as the last 3 versions
> of the 3.0.x series.

Very good point, given the meaning of the major version numbers.

> Also, should we check dependencies before archiving? You may have a
> particular version for a gem that you want to keep, but it still
> depends on another gem with a version you want to archive.

Another very good point.  Absolutely crucial, I'd say.

> Last thing: maybe also check for download statistics before archiving?
> Maybe we should keep any version that was downloaded in the last X
> months, and only archive it after it hasn't been used in a while. This
> will obviously change between gems.

I thought about this one too.  It might be painful unless we could  
use, for example, a summary pre-generated by
webalizer (I wonder if it leaves this kind of data lying around in  
non-HTML format after a run?).


More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list