On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:51:12 +0200
Stephan Kulow
On 16.07.2012 13:39, Josef Reidinger wrote:
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:33:49 +0200 Stephan Kulow
wrote: On 11.07.2012 14:51, James Tan wrote:
Ping, no comments from anyone?
For the short/immediate term I highly recommend that we go with allowing the bundling of gems in applications.
This ruby community is great in exchanging ideas :)
Greetings, Stephan
Well, what you ideas you expect? For me it is reinventing wheel. It is exactly same for me like discussion if we should link libraries statically or dynamic. I see there same pros&cons. And question is if we want user to get bundled apps from us ( some appliacation is so complex, fragile, that any dependency change can break it ) or if he should download it outside of distribution ( like we do now with bundled libraries, e.b. games from humble bumble, that often contain static libraries ).
I see there only small difference, that more ruby library authors ignore backward compatibilty ( just my observation ), but it is not bug difference.
So what we should discuss? It is clear decision what we want distribute.
OK, replace ideas with opinions in my statement.
I read your mail as "if applications are as fragile as requiring bundled gems, do not distribute it" btw.
Greetings, Stephan
OK, my opinion is that we should consider it per project. If we allow bundled gems, then project must be enough important. I think we should have basic rule to not allow it and only if project is enough popular, important, etc then allow it. Having bundled gems indicate for me that project is badly written as it is fragile to changes in gem versions or have "bad" gems choice ( exotic gems, that use only project itself or gems that ignore backward compatibility ). Josef -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ruby+owner@opensuse.org