drbrain at segment7.net
Fri Feb 1 07:21:13 EST 2008
On Feb 1, 2008, at 04:02 AM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Feb 2008, Eric Hodel wrote:
>> On Feb 1, 2008, at 02:23 AM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
>>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Mark Hubbart wrote:
>>>>>> Plus one might not have a rubyforge project.
>>>> The "real" project could be on sourceforge.org, or code.google.com.
>>> Maybe there needs to a directive to say whwere the project is?
>> There is also a #homepage= for Gem::Specification, but with the
>> current gem repository, this is a bikeshed objection as under 1% of
>> gems are published without a rubyforge project.
> I'd agree the default is correct most of the time, but there are a
> lot of gems now, so 1% is not insignificant. I don't see that
> arguing for choice is a bikeshed argument. If you argue that too
> much code will have to change to support this, that it is the thin
> end of a long wedge (multiple mirror sites will come next!) that it
> would make the gemspec more brittle as it depends on more
> information, or that the suggestion is otherwise malformed, then
> fair enough. It was a suggestion offered in the hope that someone
> might say "I have a better idea:...". Is there a wishlist to which
> this might be added? Maybe *I'm* taking your use of the word
> "bikeshed" too seriously! I'm really only trying to help suggest a
> "fix" for a known edge case, I'm not saying things are fundamentally
> wrong, because clearly gems have been marvellous for ages.
I say it's a bikeshed argument as it only affects gem authors who
don't publish on rubyforge, and none of them have complained about it,
and people are complaining for such a person who might exist, maybe.
I've asked Tom for the number of gems that are added to the repository
manually, just to be sure.
More information about the Rubygems-developers