Hi!

On 17 February 2015 at 14:15, SHIBATA Hiroshi <shibata.hiroshi / gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi, Benoit.
>
> > - The first step is to bring nurse/rubyspec up to date with
> > rubyspec/rubyspec archive's branch.
> > I am willing to do that if no one has an objection against it. Any help
> is
> > welcome of course! (just email me)
>
> I will help to this work. 1 month ago, I investigate rubyspec's archive
> branch.
> I found following issues:
>
>  * rubyspec removed to support Ruby 1.9.3
>   * but MRI 1.9.3 is ended at Feb. 23, it's not problem now.
>  * some spec is failing on 2.3.0
>

Great, I think maintaining many different versions is hard so caring only
about >= 2.0 should make things a bit simpler.
We need to have a look at these failures before merging.
Anthony Crumley already looked at some recently, let's coordinate our
efforts.


> > - The second step is really to choose a canonical RubySpec repository, to
> > avoid "death by too much forks".
> > This repository should only contain RubySpec tests for practical reasons.
> > We should allow many specs contributors to take part in merging changes
> and
> > maintaining specs.
> > I think this was a fatal flaw of rubyspec/rubyspec in that too few people
> > had the large burden of merging and maintaining the specs.
> >
> > The main existing repository I see today is nurse/rubyspec.
> > I am thinking the process could be similar to handling pull requests on
> > ruby/ruby in that some contributors would provide feedback and merge
> them.
> > The CI is very useful in this regard to ensure MRI is not broken
> > inadvertently.
> > I think it would make sense in that case to move nurse/rubyspec to
> ruby/rubyspec for clarity.
>
> I agreed with your suggestion. I will coordinate with nurse. Please
> wait few days.
> (PS. I think it's better to move nurse/mspec to ruby/mspec)
>

Thanks!
Yes, of course mspec should follow as well.


> > - The third step is to decide what to do about new specs which are not
> > contributed to the canonical repository directly.
> > This is worth another discussion and I think it is wiser to first achieve
> > the two first steps before discussing this in more details.
>
> this topic is epic for me. we need to finish 1 and 2 steps at first.
>
> --
> SHIBATA Hiroshi shibata.hiroshi / gmail.com
> http://www.hsbt.org/
>