On Sep 28, 6:14 ¨Âí¬ ÊáíåÇòáù ¼êá®®®Àçòáùðòïäõãôéïîó®îåô÷òïôåº
> On Sep 28, 2008, at 3:19 PM, hemant wrote:
>
> > Getting your library in stdlib means, you are mostly
> > handling over reins to someone else.
>
> I don't think this has to be true.
>
> My CSV (formerly FasterCSV) library was added to the standard library > last December.  ¨Â èáöå ãïîôéîõåôï íáéîôáéî éô óéîãôèåî éîãìõäéîâéòå÷òéôïæ ôèðáòóåò ôï áäí±·î óõððïòô®
>
> Thus, I think this depends entirely on the contributor.  ¨Â ðåòóïîáììù æååì ìéôôìå íïòå ðòåóóõòå ôï ëååð ÃÓòõîîéî÷åìì îïôèáô éô óèéð÷éôè Òõâù ¨Â ÷ïõìòáôèåò îïóåðåïðìå óáùéîç¢ÔèáîåÃÓìéâòáòóõãë󡺩

Fair point. But really, would you have felt any different if FasterCSV
were still a separate gem? Your name is pretty synonymous with
quality. And as a separate gem you could improve your library faster,
on an independent release schedule.

> > Bundling of many libraries within stdlib has sorta killed
> > competetion (net/http for instance).
>
> FasterCSV and mini/unit were both developed with CSV and test/unit > being in the standard library.  ¨Âèåçáéîåä åîïõçè ôòáãôéïî ôï òåðìáãôèìéâòáòéåôèåù éíðòïöåä õðïî éî ôèéó òåìåáóå®  ¨Âçáéîôèéó äïåóî§óååí ôï âå õîéöåòóáôòõôè®

That's not really true. Look at the download numbers for miniunit
(http://rubyforge.org/frs/?group_id=1040). I wouldn't call that
traction. It's adoption into stdlib has more to do with who's pushing
it then anything else. That's not so say it isn't a worthy
replacement. I think on the whole it probably is, but that lends
itself more to my argument.

I'd rather see third party bundles of Ruby and popular libraries,
instead of Ruby harboring so much its own repository.

T.