On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 01:12:58PM +0900, Austin Ziegler wrote:
[detailed change list]

Trying to prioritize these changes:

I believe (4), (1), (11) are needed most urgently: they affect some core
functionality which as you can see some people have a problem with right
now.

(3), (6), (7), (9), (10), (12) are additive changes which shouldn't pose a
problem. While useful, they seem less important than the former.
[I suspect (3) will be somewhat controversial, and I'm not sure how far (9)
can go, but this is secondary.]

(2), (5), (8) look harder and probably beyond what RubyGems can/wants to  do.
(5) and (8) might require the sort of integration with the native environment
you said you didn't care about. (2) is implied by (1) and doesn't need further
changes at the RubyGems level, does it? Still, we'd need several other things
for a large scale QA effort. [But I'm working on that.]

-- 
Mauricio Fernandez