Issue #15487 has been updated by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune).


Much of this is in this [list of maintainers](https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/trunk/doc/maintainers.rdoc) and [basic maintainers guidelines](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/projects/ruby/wiki/MaintainerDischargingProcess)

As for the `json` gem, I agree it should be made clear which is the authoritative repository. I can help with maintainership too.

----------------------------------------
Misc #15487: Clarify default gems maintanance policy
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15487#change-75990

* Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
----------------------------------------
In addition to #15486, I'd like to raise the question of the general _maintanance policy_ for "default" Ruby gems, in particular:
* who is responsible for each gem and how they should be contacted?
* what are goals and policies for gems code quality and documentation?
* where do default gems are discussed?
* what are some promises/guarantees default gems maintainers try to fulfill?

The most demonstrative example I'd like to point is `json` gem:
* The source at [ruby/json](https://github.com/ruby/json) is NOT authoritative as far as I can tell, the authoritative one is [flori/json](https://github.com/flori/json)
* The gem still holds signs of the times it was independent (`Pure` and `Ext` JSON implementations, but `Pure` is not copied into the `ruby/lib` on releases, rendering standard docs pretty weird), and has NO mention it is THE json gem of Ruby
* The gem seems unmaintained, considering the amount of [PRs](https://github.com/flori/json/pulls) and [issues](https://github.com/flori/json/issues), lot of them without any reaction for months
* When I tried to update JSON docs, in [core tracker issue](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14581) I was asked to make a PR to "upstream repository", but there, the PRs ([#347](https://github.com/flori/json/pull/347), [#349](https://github.com/flori/json/pull/349)) was simply ignored; Ruby 2.6 was released without new docs, despite the fact PRs were made at **March** and require almost no code review (unlike even some promising optimization PRs, that were also hanging there since Feb/Mar)

It is just one unfortunate case (TBH, my experience with contributing to other libraries, like `csv` and `psych` was much smoother), but it demonstrates some common lack of transparency in maintaining of Ruby's standard library



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>