Issue #15487 has been updated by naruse (Yui NARUSE).


Some of libraries has upstream and others are originated in ruby repo.
And some upstreams are not maintained but some of such libraries are transfered its privilege to hsbt.

Such historical reasons are hard to explain.
OSS project depends on volunteer and explanation itself takes much cost.
Read  doc/maintainers.rdoc and logs of mailing list and related issues.

Anyway just about json.gem, you should imagine what the conclusion will be.

----------------------------------------
Misc #15487: Clarify default gems maintanance policy
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15487#change-75997

* Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev)
* Status: Assigned
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA)
----------------------------------------
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>