On 13 January 2016 at 11:53, Sam Ruby <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 6:13 AM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: >> There does not seem to be much (if any) advantage of using a Gem to >> hold the common Whimsy code. >> >> There are some disadvantages: >> - testing changes to the library code is harder >> - Gem has to be generated, uploaded and deployed >> - having the Gem as well as the source code on the same system is >> confusing as they may differ >> >> I think it would be much simpler to reference the library code using a >> relative RUBYLIB definition. >> >> This will mean some changes in order to provide version tags, but >> those need to be done anyway as the code currently assumes SVN is >> being used. > > Gems can be locally installed, and Gemfiles can be used to locate > them. The following change should allow you to do what you want: > > https://github.com/apache/whimsy/commit/7d09b579bf02a186a739ad72ce8096640388dec8 > > Should it work out, all that would need to be done is to add "require > 'bundler/setup'" to the main executables. > > I don't know if this completely addresses the problem, but it is a > reasonable first step in that it allows code to be migrated one > application at a time.
Still seems unnecessarily complicated, and there are then potentially 3 different versions of the library code: - lib/whimsy - local Gem - system Gem Defining RUBYLIB works for me locally, and can be done in a login script. > - Sam Ruby
