Austin Ziegler <halostatue / gmail.com> writes:

> On 11/19/05, Trans <transfire / gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>> So I'd like to know if others would be in support of this approach as I
>> have already written a system to do exactly this. The system deals with
>> all the details that arise doding this and adds some additional
>> benefits, but the above is heart of the matter. The system is nearly
>> ready for release. I am down to completing thread safety and
>> solidifying the exact require interface that will support it.
>>
>> So what do you think? Anything you'd like me to clarify? Is there
>> support out there for pursuing this approach?
>
> Yeah -- if you really want to propose an alternative, code it. No,
> really. Sit down and code it out. Start finding out what the problems
> with your approach would be. I'm *really* tired of people being lazy
> backseat drivers to the problems that the RubyGems team has *solved*.
> If you don't like what RubyGems does, provide something else as a
> reasonable alternative.
>
> Otherwise, STFU. Please.

I'm not going to get involved in this discussion other than to make one
small point: Trans _has_ coded up an alternative.  Re-read his paragraph
above (the one which starts with the words "So I'd like to know ...").


-- 
 Lloyd Zusman
 ljz / asfast.com
 God bless you.