Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 07:18:44PM +0100]:
Hi,
I attended a RubyCamp yesterday, which gave a very positive attitude of
the Ruby community (at least the local one, of course :P).
I discussed the rubygems issue with them, and I think it basically
boils down to a lack of
(reorganizating your mail a bit since point 1 is split in two places --
don't take offense :P)
On 24/02/09 at 10:17 -0600, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
On your re-writing of the pages: I agree with the general
spirit. However, maybe we should move a bit more, given the evolution
in Rubyland. We have so
On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 8:17 AM, Gunnar Wolf gw...@gwolf.org wrote:
metadata.gz). And although data.tar.gz unpacks on the current
directory, I guess we could save quite a bit of animosity by handling
gems as we handle a regular orig.tar.gz.
The gem tar format also has timestamp issues on the
On 22/02/09 at 22:54 +0100, Esteban Manchado Velázquez wrote:
Hi!
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:18:44 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum
lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote:
Hi,
I attended a RubyCamp yesterday, which gave a very positive attitude of
the Ruby community (at least the local one, of course :P).
I
Hi!
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:18:44 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum
lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote:
Hi,
I attended a RubyCamp yesterday, which gave a very positive attitude of
the Ruby community (at least the local one, of course :P).
I discussed the rubygems issue with them, and I think it basically
Hi,
I attended a RubyCamp yesterday, which gave a very positive attitude of
the Ruby community (at least the local one, of course :P).
I discussed the rubygems issue with them, and I think it basically
boils down to a lack of information on our side. I've tried to rework
the Position on rubygems
