On 10/3/07, Jacob Fugal <lukfugl / gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/3/07, Eric Hodel <drbrain / segment7.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 3, 2007, at 08:59 , Jacob Fugal wrote:
> > > On 10/3/07, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi <nakahiro / sarion.co.jp> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> ruby core team would like to include Rake in Ruby 1.9.  Let's discuss
> > >> about importing Rake into Ruby's svn repository.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Will Rake be "fully" bundled (core), or "pre-installed-gem" bundled
> > > (std-lib)? My vote is for the latter.
> >
> > What difference does this make?
>
> I'm mostly thinking of the discussion in the thread regarding
> unbundling libraries so that they can still evolve and release on a
> more rapid schedule than the core. I'd like to see rake able to have
> that flexibility as well.
>
> I'm definitely in favor of having rake available from the moment I
> install ruby without needing to explicitly install the gem, but I
> would also like to be able to update the rake gem without reinstalling
> all of ruby (or waiting for a new ruby install to be available).
>

+1 for Jacob and Mike comments. Having rake as gem gives us the
flexibility to update. Bundling it with core will make that hard.

RubyGems feels part of ruby, and should be on core (and will be as I
been reading).

Following the motto of python (batteries included) maybe will be too much... :-P

-- 
Luis Lavena
Multimedia systems
-
Leaders are made, they are not born. They are made by hard effort,
which is the price which all of us must pay to achieve any goal that
is worthwhile.
Vince Lombardi