[Rubygems-developers] Status of disabling plugins except for command line?

James Tucker jftucker at gmail.com
Thu Dec 23 11:35:31 EST 2010


On Dec 23, 2010, at 4:08 AM, Trans wrote:

> 
> 
> On Dec 22, 10:46 pm, James Tucker <jftuc... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 2010, at 5:56 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
>> 
>>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter
>>> <head... at headius.com> wrote:
>>>> Here's my naïve change and the impact to perf with around 500 installed gems:
>> 
>>>> https://gist.github.com/751969
>> 
>>> I'm guessing there's also potential fixes for that scanning process,
>>> all the way up to caching lists plugins on install (i.e. eliminating
>>> future scans altogether), but this is a good quick fix for
>>> non-command-line rubygems use.
>> 
>> +1 on this patch for now.
> 
> -1 _for now_.
> 
>>  - This will break 4 gem plugins, mostly minor and I've never seen them used 'in the wild'. I have the list knocking around somewhere, I'll dig it up if someone reminds me when I'm awake.
> 
> I know of at least two gems it will break, and I suspect they are not
> your four.

Names please. I audited every single gem that is available on the rubygems.org index. A 61Gb expansion of all code.

> I thought RubyGems was supposed to be so *conservative* about changes,
> and here a change is just going to be pushed that breaks people's
> plugins for the sake of a speed up for those who have 500+ gems
> installed?

This feature is currently broken. It's also not just effective for people with 500+ gems installed. This combined with changes that have already been merged into master brings rubygems.rb loading down to the same order of magnitude as gem_prelude.rb. My target is to have that buggy piece o' crap deprecated too.

> Overlooking the fact that there other solutions to deal with large gem
> collections, like rvm's gemsets. Why wouldn't the prudent course of
> action be to actually fix this _correctly now_, rather than implement
> a "phase 1" change that will leave certain types of plugins out in the
> cold for who knows how long?

Time. As stated, I've done my research, please name the gems that you claim will suffer.

> If that's asking too much, then at the very least, make this patch a
> configurable option in the .gemrc file. Power users who aren't using
> any of the above mentioned plugins could then easily flip the switch
> to get the speed up.

Please explain this.



More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list