2 ms·

This is the only outcome that anyone who touches ruby cannot be upset with.

by joshmn 1y ago

baggy_trough 1y ago
cannot?
- riffraff 1y ago
  as a rubyist, I'd second "cannot"
  - joshmn 1y ago
    my coffee hadn't hit—that was my intention, the "cannot"
    - gus_massa 1y ago
      If you go to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45616729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45616729 you can fix it during a short window [2 hours?]. Add also at the bottom a short comment, so the other replies don't look wrong. Somethig like: Edit: fixed can -> cannot
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
shevy-java 1y ago
How so? I think there are a gazillion questions left. But, I also agree that the future will tell, e. g. we'll have to see how popular gem.coop will become (if they become popular). And I also, despite my disagreements, think that it may have been better to solve installations of ruby projects from the get go, e. g. Rust + cargo. But I also see this as separate from a service such as rubygems.org (or whoever provides any infrastructure). The question of who develops functionality can be separate, I have no strong preference here. And, I also agree that having both bin/gem and bin/bundle is not good. There should be a unified API (or two - a simple one maintained by ruby core, and then people can build extra functionality into their own variants). Sadly this all also may end up like this: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ What I liked about bin/gem was its simplicity. Bundler brought a few new things or easier things to the table. "gem" should make it much easier to use any source though, including gem.coop.
- kayodelycaon 1y ago
  It's pretty easy to change the sources for ruby gems using "gem sources" or ~/.gemrc. I'm not sure how that could be improved.
MatthiasPortzel 1y ago
This is only a win for Ruby Central. They haven't conceded anything and they've convinced Ruby Core to endorse them as the correct and true maintainers of RubyGems. > While repository ownership has moved, Ruby Central will continue to share management and governance responsibilities for RubyGems and Bundler in close collaboration with the Ruby core team. Andre has previously maintained that he owns a trademark on Bundler and he will enforce it against Ruby Central. => https://andre.arko.net/2025/09/25/bundler-belongs-to-the-ruby-community/ https://andre.arko.net/2025/09/25/bundler-belongs-to-the-rub... So Ruby Central transfers "ownership" of Bundler to Ruby Core. Ruby Central gets to continue to maintain Bundler, and Ruby Core is stuck with the liability. If Andre wants to enforce his trademark, he now has to sue Japan-based Ruby Core and risk the bad optics of that.
- damagednoob 1y ago
  >Andre has previously maintained that he owns a trademark on Bundler and he will enforce it against Ruby Central. Well, 1. He's not fighting Ruby Central anymore, he'd be fighting the Ruby core team. 2. He's going to have a tough time asserting copyright on a name he didn't come up with on a project which shipped v1 before he joined. 3. If he believes the trademark belongs to the community, the right thing to do would be to transfer it to Ruby Core then, right?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
ergocoder 1y ago
People aren't upset because Matz hasn't chimed in on immigration laws yet.

This is the only outcome that anyone who touches ruby cannot be upset with.

by joshmn 1y ago

This is the only outcome that anyone who touches ruby cannot be upset with.

baggy_trough 1y ago

cannot?

riffraff 1y ago
as a rubyist, I'd second "cannot"
- joshmn 1y ago
  my coffee hadn't hit—that was my intention, the "cannot"
  - gus_massa 1y ago
    If you go to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45616729 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45616729 you can fix it during a short window [2 hours?]. Add also at the bottom a short comment, so the other replies don't look wrong. Somethig like: Edit: fixed can -> cannot
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

shevy-java 1y ago

How so? I think there are a gazillion questions left. But, I also agree that the future will tell, e. g. we'll have to see how popular gem.coop will become (if they become popular). And I also, despite my disagreements, think that it may have been better to solve installations of ruby projects from the get go, e. g. Rust + cargo. But I also see this as separate from a service such as rubygems.org (or whoever provides any infrastructure). The question of who develops functionality can be separate, I have no strong preference here. And, I also agree that having both bin/gem and bin/bundle is not good. There should be a unified API (or two - a simple one maintained by ruby core, and then people can build extra functionality into their own variants). Sadly this all also may end up like this: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/ What I liked about bin/gem was its simplicity. Bundler brought a few new things or easier things to the table. "gem" should make it much easier to use any source though, including gem.coop.

kayodelycaon 1y ago
It's pretty easy to change the sources for ruby gems using "gem sources" or ~/.gemrc. I'm not sure how that could be improved.

MatthiasPortzel 1y ago

This is only a win for Ruby Central. They haven't conceded anything and they've convinced Ruby Core to endorse them as the correct and true maintainers of RubyGems. > While repository ownership has moved, Ruby Central will continue to share management and governance responsibilities for RubyGems and Bundler in close collaboration with the Ruby core team. Andre has previously maintained that he owns a trademark on Bundler and he will enforce it against Ruby Central. => https://andre.arko.net/2025/09/25/bundler-belongs-to-the-ruby-community/ https://andre.arko.net/2025/09/25/bundler-belongs-to-the-rub... So Ruby Central transfers "ownership" of Bundler to Ruby Core. Ruby Central gets to continue to maintain Bundler, and Ruby Core is stuck with the liability. If Andre wants to enforce his trademark, he now has to sue Japan-based Ruby Core and risk the bad optics of that.

damagednoob 1y ago
>Andre has previously maintained that he owns a trademark on Bundler and he will enforce it against Ruby Central. Well, 1. He's not fighting Ruby Central anymore, he'd be fighting the Ruby core team. 2. He's going to have a tough time asserting copyright on a name he didn't come up with on a project which shipped v1 before he joined. 3. If he believes the trademark belongs to the community, the right thing to do would be to transfer it to Ruby Core then, right?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

ergocoder 1y ago

People aren't upset because Matz hasn't chimed in on immigration laws yet.