
Don't forget about RubyForge - sant0sk1
http://judofyr.net/posts/dont-forget-about-rubyforge.html
======
defunkt
Disclaimer: I'm a GitHub guy but also a big Rubyforge user (3 years and a
handful of gems there).

That said, the technical issues raised in this article could be addressed in
other ways: RubyGems could be patched to search for dependencies in all of the
gem sources and Rubyforge could add a way to remove gems from the index (no
more outdated 'mash').

But why? Why not just keep Rubyforge central? It's worked well so far.

A few reasons.

Foremost is this idea of an "official" RubyGem. What does that word mean? It
means that if I disappear, so does my project. If I lose interest, my project
dies. With larger projects this doesn't happen so often. It would be hard for
Rails or MooTools to just vanish. But for smaller projects, which are legion,
this is a constant. People lose interest - often right when you become
interested. Let's call it Defunkt's Law.

Defeating Defunkt's Law is one of the primary motivations behind GitHub. Let
the Internet decide the 'official' version of smaller projects. If you Google
'mash' and my version comes up before mbleigh's, guess what? Mine is the
official version. We have all these tools for deciding what's good content on
the web, why not apply them to code?

sr's git-wiki is a great example of this. Google "git-wiki" and al3x's version
comes up - a fork with distinct features. The market has spoken.

It's true that within GitHub, finding the "blessed" or "official" or valuable
fork is not the easiest thing in the world. But we're working towards this
goal - which project in this tree is the most interesting? Which is clearly a
feature fork? Which are just impulse forks?

While entropy can seem scary, we believe the future of development is
distributed.

~~~
jamesbritt
"If you Google 'mash' and my version comes up before mbleigh's, guess what?
Mine is the official version."

Cool. If I can Google-bomb a project name I can seize authority,

"We have all these tools for deciding what's good content on the web, why not
apply them to code?"

Because page rank is a shitty way to determine good content?

BTW, you don't need to patch gems to search additional locations for gems.

------
petercooper
Note: There are currently 21 comments - and rather a bit of discussion - about
this over on RubyFlow - <http://www.rubyflow.com/items/666>

------
shevertalov
RubyForge was one of the reasons I got really interested in ruby/rails
development. A central location is a must for new ideas to be easily moved
around.

------
lux
What about a means of pulling updates from the GitHub gem server over to
RubyForge? Or a hook in GitHub that ties gem publishing into RubyForge? Seems
there are a number of ways to solve this problem with just a little
collaboration between RubyForge and GitHub, without sacrificing any of the
centralization of RubyForge or the distributed coding goodness of GitHub :)

