Chad Fowler wrote:
> So, to expand on your original statement, we actually have three
> things (or four):
> 
> 1.  Package format
> 2.  Package repository
> 3.  QA / Validation process (RPA)
> 4.  Package index (RAA)
> 
> I see RubyGems filling the needs of #1 and #2.  In fact, I see it
> actually filling those needs for > 200 packages and literally
> thousands of users today.

Chad, do you think it's possible to combine what RPA wanted to offer, 
and what RubyGems wanted to offer?  For instance, to maybe be able to 
tag RubyGems packages as being "stable" and "unstable".  Packages tagged 
as "stable" would have passed the RPA QA process, by default everything 
else would go in "unstable"?

Do you think the different approach to packaging / format of the 
packages is a matter of concern?  Maybe the standard "Gem" format could 
be one of a few different "renderings" of the package.  That way, you 
could also "render" as a .rpm or as a .deb or an RPA package.

I'd love to see the QA aspect of RPA combined with the repository / 
format aspect of RubyGems.  I also think that if there were "one true 
approach" to packaging Ruby libs and apps, it would bring people (like 
me) in from the sidelines to start actively using one or the other.

Ben