(2010/09/10 23:33), James Cox wrote:
> 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?

Scripts like ruby -rrexml -e'p REXML' works now if for example Ruby 1.9.2
is installed and without any other libraries.
Your plan breaks this.

We think it is incompatible and it is not OK.


Yeah, we can break such compatibility on major bump: Ruby 2.0.

-- 
NARUSE, Yui  <naruse / airemix.jp>