Doug Kearns wrote:

> Sheesh, I'm really getting tired of these vim-ruby threads on
> ruby-talk... ;-)

Sorry, ;-)

> > > And I don't echo the RTFM stuff, either.  A question from a reasonable
> > > person means something wasn't clear to a user that was clear to a
> > > developer.  The sensible resolution: developer thanks user and tries
> > > to make the software clearer in what it's doing, or whatever.  So
> > > thanks, Mark.

> > How was this clear to a developer? 

> In the end it wasn't and I guessed incorrectly as to why Mark was even
> asking. Don't forget many Vim users (not referencing Mark here) simply
> use Vim with the basic editing commands and have very limited
> understanding of its potential. It's actually one of the first pieces of
> software I ever learned to use and I _still_ find the documentation
> baffling at times. Not because it's incomplete, far from it, but because
> you have to maintain so much context when reading it. See my last two
> 'lazy' messages to vim-dev. ;-)

True.  I guess since I managed I assume others will too.  That°«s
projection for you.

> > I guess my grief stems from an overall dislike for the over-inflated
> > importance of the vim-ruby project as a separate entity.

> No one has ever accused me of inflated self-importance before... ;-)

There°«s always a first :-).

> How is it any more separate than any of the thousand individually
> maintained runtime files?

Well, that°«s precisely it.  I haven°«t seen lengthy discussions about
other runtime files on the Net as of yet, and few have their own
project pages.  

> > As all (?) the files are included in the Vim distribution anyway,
> > why not just keep it there?

> I don't understand this at all. How exactly are they not "there"? The
> files in this project are currently 'maintained' in exactly the same
> way as all runtime files with the one exception that they are released
> together as a package for the end user's benefit. Every time they're
> considered suitably improved they are released to users and a copy sent
> to BM. That's how all runtime files are maintained.

Well, as I have been trying to get Bram to realize is that it would be
nice if everyone would just commit their files to a central repository
(the CVS) and then there wouldn°«t be a need for separate projects and
the like.  If users wanted new version they could just check it out from
there.  Perhaps one could even implement a plugin for Vim that
downloaded and installed the newest versions of the runtime files every
so often or per user°«s request.  That would make for a central, simple,
and above all standard way of dealing with updates to runtime files.

What we are doing with vim-ruby is definitely better than sticking a
URL: header in the .vim, but it°«s not great (or we wouldn°«t be having
this discussion).

> Secondly, there has been some talk of including additions like your
> 'electric' functions which wouldn't, I imagine, be distributed with
> Vim.

Hm, true, that is a valid point.  Some stuff is separate from the Vim
distribution.  But this unclear separation of what vim-ruby is (as it
both releases with Vim and independently of it) makes for the confusion
that we see now, where people don°«t really know what files they are
using, what versions they have installed, and how to verify that they
have the latest versions.  I guess this stems from the rather simplistic
design of the runtimepath in Vim.  I°«ve tried to get a patch in for at
least allowing subdirectories in ~/.vim/plugin so that we could at least
pretend to have some kind of versioning and packaging system, but for
some inexplicable (to me) reason, people like Hari Krishna Dara opposed
it; which is weird, as he has pumped out so many plugins.

> > So far, this separation has made us miss an important release,
> > namely 6.3, that contained the old files instead.

> That was simply due to a miscommunication rather than an inherent
> problem with this supposed separation. BM gives very little warning of
> a new release - ten days for 6.3. As I was probably doing the most
> work prior to that release I could probably have been more helpful to
> Gavin in organizing it but happened to be away. That said, I doubt
> we're the first or last to miss a release. Do you remember the
> disastrous sh.vim included a few releases ago? Poor Chip...

Yes, that wasn°«t very nice.  But then having a central repository would
ease this process.

> > The 6.3 release will finally be superseded by 6.4, but that°«s been
> > over a year of questions regarding what files to use, how to
> > install, and a general confusion over what°«s going on.

> Right, but this is solved. Now we should only have to endure the same
> annoying questions as all the other runtime file maintainers.
> 
> The distribution of these files between Vim releases is just plain
> broken. I've spent more than a few minutes trying to track down updated
> versions of yours after the 6.3 release. For example,
> http://www.pcppopper.org/vim/ftplugin/pcp/zsh/ isn't providing me
> with much joy right now. I'd find a Vim/Weibull project pretty handy, I
> reckon. ;-)

Yes.  That sucks.  I°«m sorry about that, but that°«s just the problem.
URLs go dead.  Having the files in a central repository is hopefully the
solution.  Now I send my files to Bram immediately upon modification and
he applies them to CVS.

> What should really happen is that all the latest runtime files should be
> posted to www.vim.org, or similar, and stored there between releases
> rather than being distributed across hundreds of websites. They're not
> even added to Vim's CVS repository between releases!

Hm, mine are in the Vim 7 CVS.  Perhaps he doesn°«t commit them to the
Vim 6 CVS any more.

> > To me, _the sensible resolution_ would be to merge the vim-ruby
> > project with mainline Vim so that there won°«t be any need for RTFMs
> > from me or °»How do I install vim-ruby°… from users,

> Again, the only difference from the maintenance of the other runtime
> files is that we distribute them together and with Gavin's nifty
> installer. When he added it and the gem I'll confess that I considered
> it overkill but there seems to be several hundred people using Gems to
> install the runtime files every release which accounts for a little less
> than half the downloads.

Mm, don°«t get me wrong.  I like it that people are putting time into
getting nice ruby support for Vim, but I wonder if the current
distribution method is the best.  But hey, if people are downloading, at
least that°«s something.  Now if we could only get them to file
bug-reports well ahead of the next release...

> >         nikolai (25 years old and ready for anger management to save
> >                  his poor heart)

> Heh, many of us were 25 and angry once... ;-)

Hopefully I°«ll be around to be able to say that I _once was_ angry,
        nikolai

-- 
Nikolai Weibull: now available free of charge at http://bitwi.se/!
Born in Chicago, IL USA; currently residing in Gothenburg, Sweden.
main(){printf(&linux["\021%six\012\0"],(linux)["have"]+"fun"-97);}