Hi,
RubyGems looks very interesting... Especially for those of us that miss perl's CPAN.
When is RubyGems "development status" expected to get a bump up from the "3 - Alpha" status currently noted here?
http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems/
Thanks.
Randy Lawrence wrote:
RubyGems looks very interesting... Especially for those of us that miss
perl's CPAN.When is RubyGems "development status" expected to get a bump up from the
"3 - Alpha" status currently noted here?
Good question. While RubyGems has come a long way, it's still on the
growth curve. There'll be a 1.0 sometime this year, I predict, but
fundamental things could still change before then, so it's hard to
consider it anything other than alpha.
Naturally, there'll be a beta period when things have stabilised and a 1.0
is imminent.
Mind you, it's a very usable alpha 
Cheers,
Gavin
Randy Lawrence wrote:
> RubyGems looks very interesting... Especially for those of us that miss
> perl's CPAN.
>
> When is RubyGems "development status" expected to get a bump up from the
> "3 - Alpha" status currently noted here?
>
> http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems/Good question. While RubyGems has come a long way, it's still on the
growth curve. There'll be a 1.0 sometime this year, I predict, but
fundamental things could still change before then, so it's hard to
consider it anything other than alpha.
Well said. The "growth curve" is the primary thing keeping us from
calling it anything other than alpha. As demonstrated by our last
release, we're not afraid to change things significantly in the name
of (we hope) progress. So, the "alpha" label is a kind of "beware of
change" sign for those developers that are cool enough to help out and
be early adopters. 
Mind you, it's a very usable alpha
Yes, please do give it a try and give us some feedback to add to the
ever-growing list of helpful feature suggestions, refactorings, and
bug reports.
Thanks,
Chad
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:10:01 +0900, Gavin Sinclair <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> wrote:
Gavin Sinclair wrote:
Randy Lawrence wrote:
RubyGems looks very interesting... Especially for those of us that miss
perl's CPAN.When is RubyGems "development status" expected to get a bump up from the
"3 - Alpha" status currently noted here?Good question. While RubyGems has come a long way, it's still on the
growth curve. There'll be a 1.0 sometime this year, I predict, but
fundamental things could still change before then, so it's hard to
consider it anything other than alpha.Naturally, there'll be a beta period when things have stabilised and a 1.0
is imminent.Mind you, it's a very usable alpha
Cheers,
Gavin
I just used RubyGems for the first time and love it! It just doesn't get easier than this from the command line.
Here's the output for those that haven't used RubyGems:
x:\> gem install net-ssh
Attempting local installation of 'net-ssh'
Local gem file not found: net-ssh.gem
Attempting remote installation of 'net-ssh'
Successfully installed net-ssh, version 0.0.3
x:\>
Chad Fowler wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 09:10:01 +0900, Gavin Sinclair > <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> wrote:
Randy Lawrence wrote:
RubyGems looks very interesting... Especially for those of us that miss
perl's CPAN.When is RubyGems "development status" expected to get a bump up from the
"3 - Alpha" status currently noted here?Good question. While RubyGems has come a long way, it's still on the
growth curve. There'll be a 1.0 sometime this year, I predict, but
fundamental things could still change before then, so it's hard to
consider it anything other than alpha.Well said. The "growth curve" is the primary thing keeping us from
calling it anything other than alpha. As demonstrated by our last
release, we're not afraid to change things significantly in the name
of (we hope) progress. So, the "alpha" label is a kind of "beware of
change" sign for those developers that are cool enough to help out and
be early adopters.Mind you, it's a very usable alpha
Yes, please do give it a try and give us some feedback to add to the
ever-growing list of helpful feature suggestions, refactorings, and
bug reports.Thanks,
Chad
Sounds great! Maybe it'll be like Firefox--gaining lots of users and popularity before hitting 1.0.
Out of curiousity, are there plans to include security features like simple digital signatures or more complex "web of trust" involving certificates?
Thanks.