Chad Fowler wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, Hal Fulton wrote:
> 
> # Chad Fowler wrote:
> # > #   I could do http://raa.rubycentral.org and/or http://raa.rubycentral.org.  
> # > # The advantage is that they would be easy for people to remember even if 
> # > # ruby-lang.org is down and there are no links.
> # > # 
> # > 
> # > or how about http://raa.rubycentral.org? ;)
> # > 
> # > (I meant to include http://raa.rubygarden.org).
> # 
> # I vote for all three.  :P
> # 
> # Actually, might it not be a good idea for things to migrate
> # gradually to rubyforge?
> # 
> # AFAIK you don't have to use "all" its features just to use it
> # for storage.
> 
> 
> That's a mighty progressive though.  If we're (the community) ready for 
> it, I think it would be fantastic.  No need for a separate RAA and 
> RubyForge when RubyForge could be RAA.succ.succ.  
> 
> What do the RAA and RubyForge guys think?

Would it be helpful to have a RAA config (which I knov nothing about, I 
hasten to add) that could be committed to?
  I wonder if that would make keeping links updated simpler?

Now rurby stdlic doc has matured, and RubyGems seems off to a flying 
start, it would be great to see a fledging CPAN-a-like start off too.

All this and the Poignant Guide too...
it's been an interesing year so far :)