Re: Gems not working

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:05 PM, Michael T. Richter <ttmrichter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 22:01 +0900, Tom Copeland wrote:

And yet another mailing list to sign up for? God DAMN! How about
just a bug tracker somewhere? Is there an URL for that? I really
don't want to increase my incoming mail any more than I already have
it. :(

Yup, there's the usual complement of RubyForge trackers and such here:

http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems/

Thanks, Tom. Lack of sleep made me not even think about looking at
RubyForge. :(


Sorry to repost this, but it should probably have been attached to
this thread....


Wondering why the endless "bulk updating" takes so long I looked that
the source a bit.
There seems that if there are more than 50 gems missing from the quick
list, a bulk update
is done:

source_index.rb:
use_incremental = missing_gems.size <= INCREMENTAL_THRESHHOLD

(INCREMENTAL_THRESHOLD is 50)

..yet it seems the quick list is always more than 50 gems out of date (for the
bulk update seems to always be done)

When downloading and extracting both lists, it look like there are 13464 gems
listed in the bulk file and 13432 in the quick list.

(For the curious, they are these files, compressed with zlib:
http://gems.rubyforge.org/yaml.Z
http://gems.rubyforge.org/quick/index.rz)


This is a difference of 32 gems, but then perhaps some on the quick list are out
of date? Or perhaps I got the numbers wrong?


So to make things faster:
--------------------------------

1. Since the bulk index is 854k and expands to 20MB, perhaps there's a way to
keep that quick index more up-to-date?

2. Only 3134 of the 13432 gems are unique gems - 10298 are older versions
of these gems. I think that people rarely search or install old gems, so perhaps
the list can be split into a file for latest versions versus old versions.

3. I often search for gems repeatedly, and the bulk index gets pulled down
repeatedly - why not save this file locally for at least a few hours?
(probably try to implement this myself just now)
-- did this by now, but there seems to be an attempt at this already built-in.

4. Perhaps if the server is taking strain, a mirror or two could be
set up? I doubt
many people would care about such relatively small files on their servers -
I'd be willing to ask some people if they'd do a ZA mirror.



Any comments?

Les

.

Relevant Pages

  • The Gems Repository Stats
    ... There seems that if there are more than 50 gems missing from the quick ... list, a bulk update ... When downloading and extracting both lists, it look like there are 13464 gems ... Since the bulk index is 854k and expands to 20MB, ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)
  • Re: The Gems Repository Stats
    ... There seems that if there are more than 50 gems missing from the quick ... list, a bulk update ... RubyGems has a new metadata fetcher (SpecFetcher) and will not need to ... CPU-wise there isn't any strain on the mirrors that I know of, ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)
  • Re: distribution list
    ... My experience is that you can expect a 5-10% bounce rate for any bulk ... mailing list you have, you should start considering a bulk mailing solution ... If you want to continue with a public folder, forget distribution lists. ...
    (microsoft.public.outlook.contacts)
  • Rubygem libs vs Non Rubygem libs
    ... quoth the lists: ... You have to require rubygems first. ... Some might have the lib installed from gems and some might have installed ... "...the number of UNIX installations has grown to 10, ...
    (comp.lang.ruby)
  • Re: Ruby Gems and Debian packages of Ruby Gems
    ... lists on the Debian 'alioth' site. ... pkg-ruby-extras policy on gems. ... To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ...
    (Debian-User)