3 ms·
Looking good. Reading this though, I couldn't help thinking that Bundler and RubyGems should possibly be the same thing. They are both pretty much essential to
by oomkiller 15y ago
Looking good. Reading this though, I couldn't help thinking that Bundler and RubyGems should possibly be the same thing. They are both pretty much essential to running/developing any non trivial Ruby application. Why not make them the same so we don't have compatibility problems? This would remove a lot of code from Bundler that is used for supporting a bunch of old versions of RubyGems. It would also pretty much dissolve compatibility problems between the two, since there would be test coverage to make sure everything worked for that version.
- rawsyntax 15y agoNot everyone wants to use bundler.
- oomkiller 15y agoI'm not advocating requiring bundler (that would be stupid). I'm just saying that they seem to go hand in hand, bundler could be a "feature" to RubyGems, kind of like how Capybara "absorbed" Steak, since it was a natural extension/feature.
- sandal 15y agoThere are certain parts of Bundler that can (and perhaps should) be merged into RubyGems. Now is not the time to work on that, but after Ruby 1.9.3 is out, consider raising this question with Evan, as there is some potential there.