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

Gem.coop

gem.coop

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 331 posts

Re: Gem.coop

#81

Post by sandstrom »

I understand forking is sometimes needed, but it's also somewhat discouraging to see that the differences couldn't be reconciled.

As long as people are aligned on advancing the Ruby ecosystem, I think it should be possible to cooperate even if there are disagreement in other areas [which political party you support, differences in personal opinions, etc].

Maybe it'll be resolved eventually, just like Merb Rails, Bundler RubyGems and RubyTogether RubyCentral were eventually merged. That's what I'm hoping for!

Re: Gem.coop

#82

Post by ilikepi »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #53
joeldrapper wrote: post #49

Why has this been flagged?

Just some background: there is a controversy in the Ruby community[0][2] around the governance of the rubygems project. It has been maintained for a long time by employees of Ruby Central but not in a corporate capacity. There was a recent hostile takeover of this project by the Ruby Central corporate arm. The most likely reason it was flagged from my perspective is that David Heinemeier Hansson (who created rails) i…

Er...FYI, your [2] link is to a discussion about an article written by the person to whom you are responding.

Personally, I think the reason this post about gem.coop has been flagged is that we've reached the point at which new HN threads about things related to the recent RubyGems shake-up quickly devolve into people rehashing the DHH "aspect" of it all. So it has become less about flagging the actual target of the post and more about flagging the parts of the discussion that seem to go nowhere.

EDIT: expanded

Re: Gem.coop

#83

Post by shadowgovt »

mijoharas wrote: post #68

So, ignoring everything that got us here, what do people think about this? As I see it, there is the original rubygems, which has lost all of it's maintainers, and this new one, that has most of the original active maintainers? (how many were there before? it has most of the ones I think about, but I didn't know who was active over there. I mostly saw activity from deivid and didn't know about most of the others to b…

I think right off the bat since they chose .coop as their TLD, a lot of corporate firewalls auto-block them and they have immediately decided to fight an uphill battle to get allow-listed to be a gem repo.

This does not bode well for the team having the socio-technical savviness to see this project through.

Re: Gem.coop

#84

Post by thomascountz »

If we isolate this from the recent controversy: in general, is an alternative (yet mostly compatible) package source, package manager, and/or language version manager neutral, good, or bad for an open source ecosystem?

Re: Gem.coop

#85

Post by MrDarcy »

thomascountz wrote: post #84

If we isolate this from the recent controversy: in general, is an alternative (yet mostly compatible) package source, package manager, and/or language version manager neutral, good, or bad for an open source ecosystem?

Mostly good. Monopolies stagnate. Competition helps drive innovation.

In open source too.

Re: Gem.coop

#86

Post by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF »

ilikepi wrote: post #82
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just some background: there is a controversy in the Ruby community[0][2] around the governance of the rubygems project. It has been maintained for a long time by employees of Ruby Central but not in a corporate capacity. There was a recent hostile takeover of this project by the Ruby Central corporate arm. The most likely reason it was flagged from my perspective is that David Heinemeier Hansson (who created rails) i…

Er...FYI, your [2] link is to a discussion about an article written by the person to whom you are responding. Personally, I think the reason this post about gem.coop has been flagged is that we've reached the point at which new HN threads about things related to the recent RubyGems shake-up quickly devolve into people rehashing the DHH "aspect" of it all. So it has become less about flagging the actual target of the…

That's fair enough, I didn't actually notice. Regardless, I was offering the information for other readers, which may or may not include the person I'm replying to.

Edit:

> flagging the parts of the discussion that seem to go nowhere

This is and isn't what actually happens, though. People do flag the parts of the discussion that don't go anywhere but then people also flag the post itself because they think there's no reason to discuss it at all for the fact there's a vocal part (minority or majority doesn't really matter) that wants to discuss a topic that's not going anywhere.

People shouldn't flag the post itself just because it's likely to gather or even has gathered a crowd that will discuss such directionless topics when there are better topics to discuss, even (especially?) if they're not currently being discussed.

Re: Gem.coop

#87

Post by soraminazuki »

So RubyGems has betrayed its community by ousting its maintainers. When a community-focused alternative created by the original maintainers is announced, it gets flagged on HN. What is wrong with people?

This situation is eerily similar to the Freenode takeover[1] and the subsequent formation of Libera Chat[2] a few years ago, even down to the political leanings of those behind the takeover. Except if the Freenode incident occurred today, there would be a vocal portion on HN vehemently siding with Freenode solely based on the perceived political affiliations of its owners. Submissions about Libera Chat would face heavy flagging, much like this one has.

It seems the Freenode team may have advanced their plans just a bit too early.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27286628

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27207734

Re: Gem.coop

#88

Post by w0m »

shadowgovt wrote: post #83
mijoharas wrote: post #68

So, ignoring everything that got us here, what do people think about this? As I see it, there is the original rubygems, which has lost all of it's maintainers, and this new one, that has most of the original active maintainers? (how many were there before? it has most of the ones I think about, but I didn't know who was active over there. I mostly saw activity from deivid and didn't know about most of the others to b…

I think right off the bat since they chose .coop as their TLD, a lot of corporate firewalls auto-block them and they have immediately decided to fight an uphill battle to get allow-listed to be a gem repo. This does not bode well for the team having the socio-technical savviness to see this project through.

seems like an easy fix in a month with a new TLD though.

Re: Gem.coop

#89

Post by phoronixrly »

mijoharas wrote: post #73
phoronixrly wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't plan on switching to a rubygems fork that does not offer technical/security benefits over the original. They can win me over with a gem distribution site that requires code signing out of the box and a bundler that enforces it out of the box.

For me, having the software be maintained (and have a security engineer working on it) feels like a security benefit. Does the original have many maintainers left?

It has allegedly been taken over by Shopify. I expect it to be very well maintained. The issues are of ethical character.

Re: Gem.coop

#90

Post by byroot »

Kudos wrote: post #67
byroot wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it is unsubstantiated.

This is a little glib, you dropped "Entirely" because you know multiple first hand accounts are actually worth something. If you want to argue the credibility of those accounts, then please be specific about it.

I dropped the entirely because I am on mobile.

We don’t have multiple first hand accounts. All we have is second hand account being relayed by someone with a massive axe to grind against Shopify.

There are a lot of truly committed Rubyists at Shopify, particularly the one handling the relationship with Ruby Central.

The idea that Shopify had done what Joel aledges without a single one of the involved parties on the Shopify side blowing the whistle is preposterous.

Post reply on HN