Hi,

> From: "Dave Thomas" <dave / pragprog.com>
> Sent: Saturday, December 27, 2003 2:10 PM

> > 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 have always believed that it's just the interpreter.  All bundled
libraries including singleton, thread, date, etc. are just bundled with it.
So all authors of bundled library should keep the library stable on ruby's
repository to avoid the effect to ruby's release maintainance I think.
"Stable" here I just mean "Do not leave it uncompilable", or etc.  No
showstopper is expected.

Just my 2 yen.  Matz should have another opinition.

> > 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.

It's great to see rdoc is getting tough through ChangeLog.

Regards,
// NaHi