Comments on: We need a new version of rake

By: Aaron Patterson

Aaron Patterson — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:53:22 +0000

@elliottcable I’m sure Tom is open to patches.

By: elliottcable

elliottcable — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:27:39 +0000

@Yossef: Uh, no. I stopped bothering with RubyForge ages ago, it's a pain (wtf, written-in-PHP?) to deal with.

GitHub gems forever! Or, better yet, let's try this new-fangled "coral" thing, eh?

By: Lawrence Pit

Lawrence Pit — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 06:17:27 +0000

@Yossef: A release as you put it requires a benevolent dictator. Which is kind of a pain point.

Installing a gem from github is not equal to what's in development there.

By: Luis Lavena

Luis Lavena — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 03:21:54 +0000

Aaron,

Not only that get fixed, but there are issues with Kernel::system() and Windows fixed in forks that got merged in 1.9 Ruby and are needed for 1.8

By: sintaxi

sintaxi — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 03:08:13 +0000

why not replace rake with thor?

By: Yossef

Yossef — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:46:54 +0000

I'm going to help you guys who obviously don't get it:

A release is when you get to type gem install rake and it Just Works.

gem install anyusername-somegemname --source http://gems.github.com/ is not a release. It is a way to get a peek at the status of a gem that is in development.

HTH HAND

By: Aaron Patterson

Aaron Patterson — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:25:54 +0000

That is not the same as an official release.

By: Chad Humphries

Chad Humphries — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:24:04 +0000

You could just gem install jimweirich-rake from github

By: Jamis Buck

Jamis Buck — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:01:32 +0000

Thanks Eric. I actually did know that, and now I feel stupid. I kept meaning to investigate those options. Now I guess I really will!

By: Eric Hodel

Eric Hodel — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:56:52 +0000

Jamis, Hoe does all of this for you, provided you maintain the History.txt while you work. Everything else is automatically generated for you.