3 ms·
We have been working on several JavaScript-related tools that build on top of RubyGems. The most recent versions of RubyGems issued what were, IMO, user hostile
by tomdale 15y ago
We have been working on several JavaScript-related tools that build on top of RubyGems. The most recent versions of RubyGems issued what were, IMO, user hostile deprecation warnings, which confused and alarmed our end users. We were not aware of these changes ahead of time, and it didn't seem to be of much concern to the RubyGems maintainers.
For critical infrastructure like package management, these kind of changes can be difficult to deal with. We're switching all of our projects to SlimGems, and are going to be contributing code for improving its use as a library for other software to build on.
- nupark2 15y agoThe Ruby/Rails way: When the drama created by oversized egos inevitably comes to a head, fork/replace the project and badmouth the other guys. Allow me to rewrite your statement to be ruby-drama-free: We have been working on several JavaScript-related tools that build on top of RubyGems. As the most recent versions of RubyGems have begun deprecating standard APIs that we and many other projects rely on, we have decided to fork the project, with the intention of maintaining an alternative to RubyGems that maintains ongoing compatibility with the existing API. <optional: insert rational for forking / discussion of how you would prefer to merge and not use the nuclear option of forking someone's project here>
- burke 15y agoPeople love to create meta-drama about the ruby drama, but really, let's not sugar-coat it. These are significant and serious breaking changes to the standard package manager, in a point release. Something is wrong.