On Dec 26, 2003, at 21:04, NAKAMURA, Hiroshi wrote:

>> My thinking was that I'm in the middle of a work-in-progress, 
>> basically
>> changing every file in the top-level directory. Although I'm trying to
>> commit files often, all the commits are really part of that single
>> change (and so I didn't feel that they needed their own Changelog
>> entry).
>
> You move main repository of rdoc to ruby's cvs from souceforge's?
> Is it troublesome task that developping "single change" in sourceforge
> or rubyforge and releasing it to ruby's?
>

The main change I'm making is altering every .c file in the 
interpreter, adding RDoc comments. At the same time, I'm finding 
changes I want to make to RDoc to support this process. I really don't 
want to maintain more repositories than I want to, so I decided to move 
all of RDoc into Ruby: the SourceForge project will go away once the 
version in Ruby has settled down.

> The point I'm wondering about using ruby's as the main repository of a
> project, is, release maintenance of ruby itself.

Agreed: this is a big issue. The real issue as I see it is "what is 
Ruby?". If it's just the interpreter, then clearly the libraries need 
to be separate. If it's the interpreter, plus everything under lib/ and 
ext/, then I think it is right that the libraries share the repository. 
If instead it's somewhere between these two extremes, then we need a 
mix of the two schemes, with some library code being managed by Ruby's 
repository, and other code being managed externally.

I've been concerned by this issue as I've watched the size of the 
standard Ruby library grow this year. (And despite this concern, I've 
added to the problem by rolling in RDoc). Maybe this is a good 
opportunity to discuss the issues.

> I like all commits to have summary log, but I'm only a library
> developer of ruby and it's up to you.

Let me try doing this, and people can complain if I'm adding too much 
useless stuff.

Cheers

Dave