[Rubygems-developers] is this thing on?

Nick Quaranto nick at quaran.to
Mon Oct 11 17:53:03 EDT 2010


Is there anything we're missing now? I tried pretty hard to test older
versions, and having a good CI suite would have helped. If there's something
we're missing now I'd like to get it filled in.

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:34 PM, James Tucker <jftucker at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11 Oct 2010, at 16:17, Chad Woolley wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:55 AM, James Tucker <jftucker at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Actually, with the way that integration works (another thing I'd like to
> address), upgrading rubygems seems to have some errors. This also reaches
> back into gemcutter, whereby I am concerned that we cannot continue to make
> sweeping changes like just turning off indexes without breaking versions. If
> this becomes the case for 1.9.2 before it's even in use as a mainstream
> version, that would be very sad. This is also (personally) my concern with
> opening up the project too fast, patches need to have some serious thought
> put into them with regard to portability and longevity. As you note
> yourself, this project services quite a wide scope, and that should be
> addressed.
> >
> > The correct way to address these risks and concerns is to have
> > adequate integration tests and continuous integration environments,
> > which allow you to be confident that any given change, in any branch,
> > will not [severely] break any environment which you care about.
> Features were removed from production servers. That was a conscious human
> choice. What I'm saying is that if this happens again, the affect to 1.9.2
> will be even worse. At least old 1.8.x systems can relatively happily
> upgrade rubygems to a working version (albeit probably outside their package
> manager). My point is that kind of indiscretion won't be recoverable in
> future unless these (process) issues are addressed. History proves that at
> least a while ago, my views were not shared. We should try to keep a
> reasonable support time on older versions. I know the ruby community moves
> fast, but that doesn't really make it acceptable to break production
> "stable" systems within a year of release, IMO.
> _______________________________________________
> Rubygems-developers mailing list
> http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems
> Rubygems-developers at rubyforge.org
> http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers

More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list