[Rubygems-developers] Roadmap for version 0.8.12

Jim Weirich jim at weirichhouse.org
Tue Jul 19 12:39:36 EDT 2005

Hugh Sasse said:

> Normally it will get the main index, and versions in the archive won't
> show up in that. Any gems in the archive will have their latest
> versions in the main index, because we preserve the most recent.
> Anything being got from the archive will thus not be a check for
> changes, so why bother to transmit the archive index at all?

Two reasons: (1) Just because the latest version is in the main directory,
that doesn't mean that the particular version requested is in the archive.
 I need to check the index of the archive to know for sure.  (2) As
proposed, the archive directory is a separate, independent source of gems.
 I don't want to develope special case behavior for the archive.

Keep in mind that not only do I have to grab the index (which doesn't
exist today), but I also have to grab the individual gemspecs for the gems
in the archive.  Otherwise I can't do dependency analysis.

(Although grabbing the gemspecs on demand might be another interesting
enhancement ... no, keep is simple for the first revision.  We can enhance
it as needed later)

-- Jim Weirich     jim at weirichhouse.org    http://onestepback.org
"Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct,
not tried it." -- Donald Knuth (in a memo to Peter van Emde Boas)

More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list