Eric Hodel
2/5/2007 7:04:00 PM
On Feb 3, 2007, at 17:37, Trans wrote:
> On Feb 3, 7:55 pm, Eric Hodel <drbr...@segment7.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2007, at 11:02, Trans wrote:
>>
>>> I have my own rendition of rubyforge.rb that I made based on the
>>> Ara's original. This script used to be tucked away in the Reap
>>> project, but I'm reorgainizing my tools
>>> and I was thinking of releasing this separately. But what wll I
>>> call it since "rubyforge" is already used? Are other's going to be
>>> happy if I call it "rubyforge2" ?
>>
>> Why don't you instead adapt your changes into a patch and file it in
>> the codeforpeople tracker? There's no sense in having an extra
>> version lying around just because you added one or two things.
>
> It not just one or two things, though. It's a good bit different in
> how it deals with config information. Mine was based on pre 0.0.0
> version and I made modification in scraping project information too
> but in a very different way than codeforpeople, ie. it doesn't require
> the setup stage, but scrapes the info on the fly and just logs in
> automatically when you do stuff. I'd be happy to contribute it, but it
> is a significant shift in functionality (though the fundamentals are
> still the same -- for example I recently reused the URI and post news
> code from the lastest codeforpeople version quite easily).
Ryan implemented an auto-config, but still as a separate stage... It
would have been nice to know about your patch before we did it. I'd
still take a look.
> Aside, I sort of wish it didn't use HTTPAccess2, it seems quite a
> hefty lib for what rubyforge.rb is using it for. But I'm not sure,
> maybe there's no better option.
HTTPAccess2 has sessions stuff built-in. *shrug*.