On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Rick DeNatale <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:17 AM, David Chelimsky <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:56 AM, Rick DeNatale wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 4:10 PM, David Chelimsky <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 3:14 PM, geetarista <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> Since Rspec-Rails 2 is specifically geared toward Rails 3, I'm >>>>> wondering why it doesn't use railtie, the new generators, etc. Will >>>>> it stay this way or is it planned to support that? >>>> >>>> It does use the new generators, and we do have a railtie, but bundler >>>> doesn't support exposing the railtie in the :test group by default, so >>>> if you do this: >>>> >>>> group :test do >>>> gem "rspec-rails" >>>> end >>>> >>>> ... then you won't see the rake tasks or the generators. I believe >>>> this will be addressed in bundler before it goes final, at which point >>>> we'll rely only on the railtie. >>> >>> I'm not sure I see how bundler would address this, but couldn't it be >>> addressed by breaking the stuff you need from rspec-rails in the >>> development environment into a separate rspec-rails-dev gem or >>> something like that. >>> >>> Breaking up gems seems to have been a theme in the transition from >>> Rails 2 -> Rails 3. >>> >>> Just an idea >> >> And an interesting one at that, but I think it would add to more confusion >> than not. Right now you just have to require 'rspec-rails' in the Gemfile >> and it depends on rspec, which depends on all the other gems. If we >> separated out a gem for generators/rake tasks, it would need to be outside >> the test group, so you'd have one rspec gem in one group and one in another. >> >> I spoke w/ wycats about this issue at RailsConf and he agreed that railties >> in the test group should be exposed in development mode. RSpec won't be the >> only tool that this impacts, nor would RSpec users be the only people. >> >> That all make sense? > > Well if it makes sense to you and Yehuda, that's all that matters. > I'm still trying to get my head around the idea of bundler loading > part of a gem, but that's probably cuz I really haven't dug into how > bundler really works.
I hadn't considered that :) I imagine it would have to load the gem. I'll discuss further w/ carlhuda and follow up when I know something new. _______________________________________________ rspec-users mailing list [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rspec-users
