Gem suggestions

[Perry Smith]

There is a gem called icu4r that is built for Ruby 1.8.

I've taken that (some years ago) and ported it to Ruby 1.9 and I have it
on github for others to use.

I was going to create a gem for it and put it on RubyGems but I have
some questions as to how I should do it.

Should I continue to call it icu4r? (Am I allowed to even call it
icu4r?) Or should I call it perhaps icu4r_19? What is the common and
accepted practice in this situation?

Thank you,
Perry

 

[pat eyler]

Have you contacted the original author yet?

There is a gem called icu4r that is built for Ruby 1.8.

I've taken that (some years ago) and ported it to Ruby 1.9 and I have it
on github for others to use.

I was going to create a gem for it and put it on RubyGems but I have
some questions as to how I should do it.

Should I continue to call it icu4r? =A0(Am I allowed to even call it
icu4r?) =A0Or should I call it perhaps icu4r_19? =A0What is the common an= d
accepted practice in this situation?

Thank you,
Perry

--=20
thanks,
-pate

 

[Perry Smith]

pat eyler wrote in post #980385:

Have you contacted the original author yet?

No, I have not. I did not know what to suggest or ask when I did.

 

[pat eyler]

I'd offer your 1.9 code up for integration. Ask if he's interested in
working together, or if he's not working on it anymore if he'd be
willing to pass the baton.

pat eyler wrote in post #980385:

No, I have not. =A0I did not know what to suggest or ask when I did.

--=20
thanks,
-pate

 

[Perry Smith]

pat eyler wrote in post #980391:

I'd offer your 1.9 code up for integration. Ask if he's interested in
working together, or if he's not working on it anymore if he'd be
willing to pass the baton.

Ok. I sent him an email.

The hard thing is that it has a lot of C code that changed between Ruby
1.8 and Ruby 1.9. It was mostly superficial changes because the macros
changed. I'm wondering if it might be best to keep two versions: a 1.8
version and a 1.9 version. That is where my questions start. How often
is that done? I know the ruby debugger is split into a 1.8 version and
a 1.9 version for example.

Thanks,
Perry

 

[Perry Smith]

Perry Smith wrote in post #980393:

pat eyler wrote in post #980391:

Ok. I sent him an email.

Update: the email to the address I have failed. I've used this email
back in 2008 so I guess he has moved on.

 

[Rados³aw Bu³at]

The hard thing is that it has a lot of C code that changed between Ruby
1.8 and Ruby 1.9. =C2=A0It was mostly superficial changes because the mac= ros
changed. =C2=A0I'm wondering if it might be best to keep two versions: a = 1.8
version and a 1.9 version. =C2=A0That is where my questions start. =C2=A0= How often
is that done? =C2=A0I know the ruby debugger is split into a 1.8 version = and
a 1.9 version for example.

IMHO the best thing is to try keep it as one gem without splitting it.
You can use C macros (ifdef, ifndef, define itp) to do that. Also
think about FFI, maybe you can rewrite it from scratch? (I don't know
how big is that gem)

If you can't contact with original author I think you can use the same
name and push it to ruby rubygems (you can write about it in README
etc).

--=20
Pozdrawiam

Rados=C5=82aw Bu=C5=82at
http://radarek.jogger.pl - m=C3=B3j blog

 

[Steve Klabnik]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

IMHO the best thing is to try keep it as one gem without splitting it.
You can use C macros (ifdef, ifndef, define itp) to do that. Also
think about FFI, maybe you can rewrite it from scratch? (I don't know
how big is that gem)

Also combining that with the required_ruby_version:
http://docs.rubygems.org/read/chapter/20#required_ruby_version

Compile it one way, push it up, compile another, push it up.