[Rubygems-developers] WARNINGS

Eric Hodel 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 mailing list