It's a combination of reasons. A lot of it is that it just makes Haml easier to update... just "gem update haml" rather than trying to find and update each individual plugin. It also means that we aren't breaking people when we change the repository layout (or just change to another version-control system altogether, as we just did). It means we have less to explain when telling people how to install Haml. It's so people using Haml as a plugin have access to the executables and the library.
And it's still possible, if more annoying, to bundle Haml with the repository.You can keep the gem in vendor, and once GitHub's Subversion mirrors are working you can use svn:externals or Piston or something to track the Subversion repo just like you did before. Tom Stuart wrote: > On 14 Feb 2008, at 20:03, Nathan Weizenbaum wrote: > >> That hasn't been the recommended way to install Haml for a while. You >> want to do >> gem install haml --no-ri >> > > Out of interest, why is the gem recommended? For my own purposes, > plugins are roughly a thousand times more convenient than gems -- I > can check them into source control (even if only with svn:externals) > and have them magically deployed wherever the application goes, > without having to worry about the local gem installations on each > server or the hassle of "vendoring everything". > > Is it just because people use Haml outside of Rails, or is there some > other motivation I don't know about? > > Cheers, > -Tom > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Haml" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
