On Aug 13, 2004, at 11:09, vruz wrote:

> In fact, I quoted your Kata text because  it seemed to me like it was
> inconsistent with the idea you seem to be suggesting here,
> (that the rpa guys should drop their project, or be assimilated by
> rubygems)

No, no no!!

I never said that, nor did I mean to imply it. I feel that RPA adds a 
layer on top of Gems: the RPA folks could have used Gems for 
distribution (possibly augmenting it with stuff they needed for trust 
information etc), and continued to add value on top in terms of 
packaging. Gems is valuable. RPA increases that value by produced 
trusted groups of packages.

Frankly, I'm sad that there seems to be some kind of contest going on 
here. It seems unnecessary and divisive. It shouldn't be a question of 
Gems or RPA. It is unseemly for any side to be knocking the other (and 
I have to say that so far the knocking seems to originate from the RPA 
side of this unfortunate fence).

Instead, it seems like it would be more productive for the teams to get 
together to work out synergies and produce a unified system the 
benefits everyone.

I'm going to drop out of this thread now.


Cheers

Dave