Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Git Hub Serves More Ruby Gems Than Rubyforge

gist.github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 20 posts

Re: Git Hub Serves More Ruby Gems Than Rubyforge

#13

Post by defunkt »

ubernostrum wrote: post #10
defunkt wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We were talking tonight about CPAN modules, Python eggs, and PEAR... pears? We'd love to take what we've learned serving Rubygems and apply the knowledge to any other languages that have a solid packaging system.

Python may be a bit more difficult than you'd expect. The tools -- easy_install, pip, etc. -- are built around a core which, though it can use alternate sources to look for packages, happens to have things like heuristics for screen-scraping pypi.python.org hard-coded in.

Luckily the documentation explains clearly those heuristics and provides examples so you can appease them yourself :)

Re: Git Hub Serves More Ruby Gems Than Rubyforge

#15

Post by tlrobinson »

defunkt wrote: post #3
jrockway wrote: post #2

When will Github do the same thing for CPAN modules? I would love to not have to release modules, and instead just tag my project as stable and let the toolchain do its thing. An API for this would also be acceptable; then I can implement this for them.

We were talking tonight about CPAN modules, Python eggs, and PEAR... pears? We'd love to take what we've learned serving Rubygems and apply the knowledge to any other languages that have a solid packaging system.

I wish there was a standard package management protocol. Why does every language have to reinvent package management? They could still write the package manager clients (and servers) in their language, as they all seem to love to do.

We (the ServerJS pseudo working group: https://wiki.mozilla.org/ServerJS) are currently looking at package management solutions for server-side JavaScript.

Using Rubygems with other languages like JS is one possibility, then we would get the Github integration for free.

And there's JSAN (http://openjsan.org/).

Kris Kowal hacked together one that pulls zipped repos directly from GitHub (or potentially any HTTP server) (tentatively named "tusk", implemented on "narwhal": http://github.com/tlrobinson/narwhal/tree/integration). One neat thing about that is you can create new versions just by tagging.

Re: Git Hub Serves More Ruby Gems Than Rubyforge

#16

Post by tlrobinson »

nexneo wrote: post #11

Github server gem as authorname-projectname so duplicate of same project should be removed from this counting. That will give actual number

3131 fyi. Here's the top 10:

  18 webrat
  18 will_paginate
  20 god
  29 rack
  30 sinatra
  31 twitter
  33 integrity
  37 merb
  48 dm
  71 ruby


    gem list -r -s http://gems.github.com | cut -d- -f 2 | cut -d " " -f 1 | sort | uniq -c | sort -n | tail -10

Re: Git Hub Serves More Ruby Gems Than Rubyforge

#17

Post by simonw »

ubernostrum wrote: post #10
defunkt wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We were talking tonight about CPAN modules, Python eggs, and PEAR... pears? We'd love to take what we've learned serving Rubygems and apply the knowledge to any other languages that have a solid packaging system.

Python may be a bit more difficult than you'd expect. The tools -- easy_install, pip, etc. -- are built around a core which, though it can use alternate sources to look for packages, happens to have things like heuristics for screen-scraping pypi.python.org hard-coded in.

Does anyone else find the idea of a package installer that /screen scrapes a website for download links/ deeply and fundamentally disturbing, or is it just me?

Re: Git Hub Serves More Ruby Gems Than Rubyforge

#18

Post by jrockway »

simonw wrote: post #17
ubernostrum wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Python may be a bit more difficult than you'd expect. The tools -- easy_install, pip, etc. -- are built around a core which, though it can use alternate sources to look for packages, happens to have things like heuristics for screen-scraping pypi.python.org hard-coded in.

Does anyone else find the idea of a package installer that /screen scrapes a website for download links/ deeply and fundamentally disturbing, or is it just me?

It's obviously impossible to write bad code in Python, so clearly everyone else is wrong. Guido said so, and he works for Google!

Re: Git Hub Serves More Ruby Gems Than Rubyforge

#19

Post by ben »

This is something to be proud of, and github is great work.

It's not really accurate, though because this lists every user's fork of a gem as a distinct gem. Here's a script I put together to get a different count, which I believe is more of a "real" count.

http://gist.github.com/120207

It's 3140 as I write this, not 4766.

Re: Git Hub Serves More Ruby Gems Than Rubyforge

#20

Post by pjhyett »

ben wrote: post #19

This is something to be proud of, and github is great work. It's not really accurate, though because this lists every user's fork of a gem as a distinct gem. Here's a script I put together to get a different count, which I believe is more of a "real" count. http://gist.github.com/120207 It's 3140 as I write this, not 4766.

Forks aren't gem-enabled by default. Meaning, the forker had to go out of their way to indicate there is something different about their gem. Is it possible there isn't unique code on some of these gems? Sure, but I wouldn't discount them outright.
Post reply on HN