As was said in the README: "The following people have submitted code, bug reports, or otherwide contributed to the success of this project:"
But they can please to go die in a fire.
Ruby-FFI is no longer maintained
41–49 of 49 posts
Re: Ruby-FFI is no longer maintained
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm helping build Sourcegraph, which lists the gems that depend on FFI here: https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/ffi/ffi/network/repos/in and can show where some of its main methods are used: https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/ffi/ffi/symbols/ruby/gem/... and also for some other gems: https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/nex3/sass/network/repos/i... https://sourcegraph.com/github.com/lsegal/yard/network/repos... https:/…
which lists the gems that depend on FFI Are these only gems where the gem source code is in Github?
Pretty much (it also includes gems hosted on Bitbucket or Google Code).
Re: Ruby-FFI is no longer maintained
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
which lists the gems that depend on FFI Are these only gems where the gem source code is in Github?
Pretty much (it also includes gems hosted on Bitbucket or Google Code).
Hmm. I was thinking it might be useful here: http://www.ruby-doc.org/gems/
Re: Ruby-FFI is no longer maintained
#44Here is a link to the "Cleaning up licensing" issue https://github.com/ffi/ffi/issues/288
Re: Ruby-FFI is no longer maintained
#45So after reading this commit: https://github.com/ffi/ffi/commit/346c80ad6b8c0e6dc3c390b582... and this discussion https://twitter.com/bascule/status/393509979711213568 I have the impression that no one can safely fork ruby-ffi without opening himself to legal trouble. It seems like the licensing of the project is a horrible mess. IANAL, so I hope I am reading this wrong?
Answering my own to bring some conclusion to this:
https://github.com/ffi/ffi/issues/288
Seems like the current maintainers are on a good way of actually contacting everyone to agree on a license change.
Re: Ruby-FFI is no longer maintained
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pretty much (it also includes gems hosted on Bitbucket or Google Code).
Hmm. I was thinking it might be useful here: http://www.ruby-doc.org/gems/
Awesome site! It would be great if you added a link to Sourcegraph there. We're going to have language-specific homepages (sourcegraph.com/ruby) and I can let you know when that's ready if you would prefer to link to that.
Re: Ruby-FFI is no longer maintained
#47Update: maintenance has been taken over by the JRuby team! Yay!
Re: Ruby-FFI is no longer maintained
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm. I was thinking it might be useful here: http://www.ruby-doc.org/gems/
Awesome site! It would be great if you added a link to Sourcegraph there. We're going to have language-specific homepages (sourcegraph.com/ruby) and I can let you know when that's ready if you would prefer to link to that.
What I was hoping was that for any given gem you could see, as part of the rendered docs, what other gems it relies on.
Basically, enhance the default docs that are generated by rdoc with additional information about the gem.
One-stop shopping, so to speak.
Re: Ruby-FFI is no longer maintained
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Awesome site! It would be great if you added a link to Sourcegraph there. We're going to have language-specific homepages (sourcegraph.com/ruby) and I can let you know when that's ready if you would prefer to link to that.
What I was hoping was that for any given gem you could see, as part of the rendered docs, what other gems it relies on. Basically, enhance the default docs that are generated by rdoc with additional information about the gem. One-stop shopping, so to speak.
I'll let you know if/when I make that patch to rubygems.org (or if it's not possible, when sourcegraph.com could provide you with that info).