On 05.01.2009, at 16:36, Tommy Morgan wrote:

> What is it that's prevented an 'REP' from being established? I've =20
> seen the above
> sentiment tossed around a lot, so if it were a matter of "we don't =20
> have anywhere
> to post them" then I'm surprised someone hasn't thrown together a =20
> quick little
> webapp to take care of that. Am I just hearing a vocal minority, or =20=

> is there
> something else going on there?


I think that if someone puts together a small merb app or rack app or =20=

whatever,
and helps Matz and co deploy it, nobody would object about having a =20
more organized way
to propose language/process/stdlib changes.

It would require a shift in perspective about the process though. My =20
observations so far (3+ years with Ruby)
are that Ruby people are a bit like children (in a good sense, and =20
myself included). They like playing and not necessary like keeping =20
things organized.

Python people are more "boring", and this is why =97 IMO =97 they have =
PEP =20
and really well thought out process of 2.5 =3D> 3.0 migration,
  and we don't have REP and any 1.8.x =3D> 1.9.x migration plans. I am =20=

not bitching/complaining here, I just want to say, this would be a way =20=

more significant move for Ruby community that a switch from Subversion =20=

to Git. This is it.

MK