On Thu, Sep 9, 2010 at 8:15 PM, NARUSE, Yui <naruse / airemix.jp> wrote:
> 2010/9/10 James Cox <james / imaj.es>:
>> As an alternate approach:
>>
>> what would the problem be to start shipping a minimal version of ruby,
>> from the next release, with everything except stdlib, which is
>> replaced with a gem distribution? Then we can promote it (with an
>> appropriate fallback to support the fully bundled version for
>> environments which need it).
>>
>> We have the wonderful rake, so I can't imagine it would be much more
>> difficult to extend our build system to handle the minimal version.
>>
>> At least this might allow us to break the deadlock and see if people
>> would be willing to switch to a simpler, clean version of ruby which
>> ships without monkey-patches and hacks to make libraries work -
>> allowing us to have a nice clean base to start adding libraries to?
>
> This breaks compatibility; it's why REXML is needed.
>
Yui,

The point is that we can have people self-select the package that best
suits their needs. We can stand behind a more lightweight package,
(medium ruby) and still provide the full-service package for rubyists
who aren't sure which they need. I'll even offer to help make sure
this happens: we just need to make sure the site makes it clear what
each package provides, and we adapt the build system to make both ruby
and ruby-full.

This makes it ok to break compatibility: people can self-select a ruby
that suits their needs. We have all pretty much agreed that a lighter
ruby, with an encouragement to use the gem community to support your
development is the right path, so a transitional period supporting
both seems appropriate?

James