Propose the removal of adoptions from RubyGems.org #58
Conversation
martinemde
requested review from
indirect,
mghaught,
simi,
colby-swandale and
segiddins
|
Could we consider an FAQ page about adoption / why this feature was deprecated? Perhaps at the very least with an answer to: "what should I do if I want or need someone else to maintain my gem?" |
| - 40 tied to Ownership Calls, with only 6 approved. | ||
| - 100 unsolicited, with 63 ignored, 8 approved, and 29 denied. | ||
|
|
||
| Only 14 successful ownership transfers occurred, reflecting a mismatch between the low-trust adoption process and the high-trust requirements of gem ownership. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
📊 14 successful ownerships in ~2.5 years, half of related gems are still abandoned and one gem was just fully yanked and never released again
|
|
||
| # Unresolved questions | ||
|
|
||
| How do we maintain abandoned but necessary packages? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Let's make packages inter-changeable with provides like functionality to remove need of taking over of ownership at all.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Absolutely. provides unlocks a whole new approach to gems.
|
@sonalkr132, respectfully asking for your feedback as well since you were instrumental in making this feature. I would support you to do the honors of removing it, if you agree and are interested (I only ask because I love removing code and assume others do too). Happy to write the docs for the replacement process. |
Unfortunately, the Adoption system poses a significant maintenance burden while providing very little benefit to the users of RubyGems.org. At the same time, it slightly increases risk by encouraging lower trust ownership transfers and opening owners of low-download gems to potential spam.