On 6 Jul 2010, at 17:18, Evan Phoenix wrote:

>=20
> On Jul 6, 2010, at 9:10 AM, James Tucker wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> On 6 Jul 2010, at 16:49, Yusuke Endoh wrote:
>>=20
>>> Issue #3140 has been updated by Yusuke Endoh.
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Hi,
>>>=20
>>> I set a deadline of this discussion: 7/10 (Sat) 23:59 JST.
>>> 1.9.2 will be released in status quo unless we can agree on concrete
>>> solution and write a patch.
>>>=20
>>> IMO, it is no use just to complain.  It is too late to broaden the
>>> discussion.  Let's focus on the issue at hand, and please write a
>>> patch yourself.
>>=20
>> I have. http://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/compare/master...perflude
>>=20
>>> Or, complain directly to the maintainer for rubygems.
>>=20
>> I am.
>>=20
>> Is the above patch to rubygems actually acceptable for inclusion (via =
rubygems/fast.rb) to be included into ruby as a replacement for =
gem_prelude?
>=20
> No, the patch isn't acceptable as going into 1.9.2, because it has not =
gone through the normal rigor of rubygems testing. I see a few issues =
with it straight away.

After discussion various of the social and release engineering issues =
with Evan, I want to provide a +1 for his patch for the 1.9.2 release.

There are still remaining bugs with gem_prelude.rb that concern me, but =
in the interest of progress I agree we should move forward and address =
these in a more organised discussion between the rubygems team and the =
ruby team by the next release in order to reduce user error reports for =
all involved, and our users.=