[Rubygems-developers] Rubygems Packaging Enhancements and Designs
luislavena at gmail.com
Wed Mar 31 19:50:53 EDT 2010
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Hugh Sasse <hgs at dmu.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, James Tucker wrote:
>> On 31 Mar 2010, at 21:05, Hugh Sasse wrote:
>> > That's clear and readily found. What isn't so clear is what is going on
>> > with require, gem versioning, and the deprecation of require_gem. Examples
>> > in some books will need to be changed.
>> I have done a first pass through the first book and fixed many of the broken items and loose markup, as well as added updates to reflect recent rubygems.org introduction and the gem push command.
> I was still talking about examples from print books that are out
> there. Some will be made obsolete by more recent editions, we face
> the same upper bounds imposed by availability of people to do this,
> but I'm coming from the position that a continual criticism of Ruby
> has been the limits on its documentation. Provision of these
> corrections seems like it could be a good aspiration, even if we
> only make limited progress.
Sorry to chime in, but is ilogical to assume that we can control an
update every book out there.
What you're suggesting is that backward compatibility should be
maintained because "Programming Ruby", based on Ruby 1.6 is still out
there in the hands of someone.
It is true that RubyGems documentation site hasn't been updated, but
if noone volunteers or provide feedback enough, that is not going to
Developers are used to peek into the source. To step up as maintainer
of a project you need to know what is made of and what are the tools
to make it work.
That is true for any project out there.
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
More information about the Rubygems-developers