# Contributing? **URL:** \ **Category:** IronRuby\ **Created:** [October 23, 2010, 2:19am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941 "2010-10-23T02:19:52Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2010, 6:30pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/21 "2010-10-23T18:30:14Z")
mletterle@michael2:~/src/ironruby/Languages/Ruby/bin/Debug$ mono ir64.exe IronRuby 1.1.1.0 on 2.8.1 (master/e8a3aab Fri Oct 22 22:15:50 EDT 2010) Copyright (c) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. > > > print RUBY\_PLATFORM > > > i386-linux\>\>\> > > > [1,2,3,4].reverse.each{|x| print “Hello! #{x}”} > > > =\> nil > > > Hello! 4Hello! 3Hello! 2Hello! 1=\> [4, 3, 2, 1]\>\>\> Mono didn’t like how some stuff was done in Enumerable.cs, but a slight refactoring (eliminate gotos, move an anonymous method out of a method argument) did the trick. Working on running the tests now. Changes are here: [http://github.com/mletterle/ironruby/tree/linux](http://github.com/mletterle/ironruby/tree/linux) On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Michael L. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:19 AM, Tomas M. > > > To: [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > > Working on getting IronRuby.Console compiled now… already ran into a casing > > issue \>.\< > > > > > contribute to Mono is the project/build system. When looking at it for > > > > > > > With a brave new world ahead for IronRuby, what do you all think > > > > charge of both projects, can we move these into separate repos? > > > > should live in its own repo, IMO. So should the Visual Studio tools. > > > > [http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core](http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core) > > Michael L. > > IronRuby MVP > > [http://blog.prokrams.com](http://blog.prokrams.com) – Michael L. IronRuby MVP > **[Michael Letterle's Blog ·](https://blog.prokrams.com/)** ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/22 "2010-10-23T19:00:25Z")
I see. “DEBUG” seems to be redundant since it’s set by the default Debug configuration in the project files. Strange, I think I tried running IronRuby on Mono 2.8 and most of it worked. If TryEnter implementation was missing something should have failed. But this was compiled using our compiler not Mono’s. So maybe the problem is just at build time? We should work with JB to get any issues fixed. Tomas ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2010, 7:01pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/23 "2010-10-23T19:01:40Z")
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 5:44 AM, Mike M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > On Oct 23, 2010, at 1:30 AM, Tomas M. \<[removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)\> wrote: > > I don’t understand how three distinct github repos that I need to map into > some directories on my disk whose relative location to each other is > hardcoded in some scripts in each are better than a single repo that has a > well-defined structure. > > You are speaking like someone responsible for both languages and the DLR. And you are speaking like someone who has tried hard several times to contribute to IronRuby and failed because of a bloated project structure. I’m sure there are several people who would be willing to help you figure out what’s wrong. Where’s the repo with your contribution? > I’m making a suggestion as someone really only interested in IronRuby. The > repo isn’t called “DynamicLanguages”, it’s called “IronRuby”, which is at > best confusing. If only git had some way to define a link to another > repository as some sort of sub module… Ah yes, and if only github had something like forking … > As a Rubyist I’d like to run a rake task to build to each defined target > and run the RubySpecs. It wouldn’t replace xbuild, just automate it. I don’t > understand the pushback to this idea. If you want to create and maintain these, I’m sure no one would complain. I don’t understand the push back to the idea that the three core contributors were a little tired of building IronRuby and maintaining two build approaches. I also don’t understand a Rubyist’s failure to see an opportunity to contribute rake tasks to a project. > Why not make a dedicated repo for IronRuby free of the ancillary projects > and geared to someone like me? And likewise make the IronPython repo > friendly to our Pythonic friends? IronPython already has a separate repo at [http://ironpython.codeplex.com/](http://ironpython.codeplex.com/). > be any simpler. > > Unfortunately I do see how this could be simpler. Great! Fork the project and show everyone! Sorry for the tone. If you were intending to come across differently, it would help offer help and not critique the great work Tomas and the rest have done. Try working on the project. Ask for help. You’ll receive it readily. You may even find some people to help you restructure the project. If it works better, I’m sure you’ll get support for moving the project to that structure. Just don’t demand “your way right away” when you haven’t contributed and don’t understand the history. It’s not your project yet. Get involved and make it yours. Ryan R. Email: [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) LinkedIn: [http://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanriley](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ryanriley) Twitter: @panesofglass Blog: [http://wizardsofsmart.net/](http://wizardsofsmart.net/) Website: [http://panesofglass.org/](http://panesofglass.org/) ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2010, 7:27pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/24 "2010-10-23T19:27:22Z")
Hey, On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Michael L. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Mono didn’t like how some stuff was done in Enumerable.cs, but a > slight refactoring (eliminate gotos, move an anonymous method out of a > method argument) did the trick. Working on running the tests now. When stumbling about cases like that, it would be really nice to extract repros and file bugs for Mono. Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2010, 8:17pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/25 "2010-10-23T20:17:03Z")
Working on it actually… 😉 Maybe, possibly, with a patch as well… (perhaps). On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Jb Evain [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Thanks! > > – > Jb Evain [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > > * * * > > Ironruby-core mailing list > [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > [http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core](http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core) – Michael L. IronRuby MVP > **[Michael Letterle's Blog ·](https://blog.prokrams.com/)** ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/26 "2010-10-23T22:33:50Z")
I have to respecify DEBUG since I’m redefining the DefineConstants property. Running would have worked as long as you didn’t try to call that method 🙂 On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Tomas M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > To: [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:19 AM, Tomas M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > wrote: > > > Sent: Friday, October 22, 2010 8:02 PM > > > > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Mike M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > > > > > and I honestly don’t care about having to check IronPython. Now that > > > > this, is it possible we can make this project reflect the realities of the > > > > majority of folks that would like to contribute? > > > > > > [http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core](http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core) > > > Ironruby-core mailing list > > Ironruby-core mailing list > [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > [http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core](http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core) – Michael L. IronRuby MVP > **[Michael Letterle's Blog ·](https://blog.prokrams.com/)** ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2010, 1:31am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/27 "2010-10-24T01:31:05Z")
I don’t want a confrontation, I was just trying to voice some concerns I have. If everyone is in agreement that the way things have been done is the best way they could have possibly been done, and that nothing should be changed now that the project owners and the rules for making contributions are fundamentally different, then by all means continue. On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Ryan R. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)wrote: > > You are speaking like someone responsible for both languages and the DLR. > > And you are speaking like someone who has tried hard several times to > contribute to IronRuby and failed because of a bloated project structure. > I’m sure there are several people who would be willing to help you figure > out what’s wrong. Where’s the repo with your contribution? I don’t understand. Is this some sort of challenge? > I’m making a suggestion as someone really only interested in IronRuby. The > > > repo isn’t called “DynamicLanguages”, it’s called “IronRuby”, which is at > > best confusing. If only git had some way to define a link to another > > repository as some sort of sub module… > > Ah yes, and if only github had something like forking … I don’t think changing the structure in forked repos would do anyone any good, as it would make sharing contributions between repos difficult. > I think you are confused to where I am puzzled about resistance. It is not about having rake tasks. I agree that they are easy enough to add and maintain, and that whining about them would be quite ridiculous. That’s not my point, however. My point is that there would be more contributions if it were not a single monolithic repository. I also think most of the historic benefits of having a monolithic repo can be mitigated with submodules and an automated build and integration server. Feel free to disagree. Why not make a dedicated repo for IronRuby free of the ancillary projects > > and geared to someone like me? And likewise make the IronPython repo > > friendly to our Pythonic friends? > > IronPython already has a separate repo at [http://ironpython.codeplex.com/](http://ironpython.codeplex.com/) > . I dunno, it looks really, really similar to the IronRuby repo on GitHub to me. Is this synched with the GitHub repo? Is this where all the “Project Merlin” changes are coming from? ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2010, 2:17am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/28 "2010-10-24T02:17:24Z")
On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Mike M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > You are speaking like someone responsible for both languages and the DLR. > > > > And you are speaking like someone who has tried hard several times to > > contribute to IronRuby and failed because of a bloated project structure. > > I’m sure there are several people who would be willing to help you figure > > out what’s wrong. Where’s the repo with your contribution? > > I don’t understand. Is this some sort of challenge? No, that’s just how I read your message. You seem to indicate that the current repo structure causes difficulty when you want to contribute. If you need help finding your way around, I’m happy to help, as I’m sure are many others. (Of course, you may want the help of others as I’m a bit rusty myself.) 🙂 > I don’t think changing the structure in forked repos would do anyone any > good, as it would make sharing contributions between repos difficult. True, but if you were able to create a repo structure you think would allow more freedom to contribute, then I think everyone would move to that structure. Changing the structure is going to take work, and I think most people who have been contributing are fine with the current structure since they’ve been used to it for some time. Actually, several layers of the repo have already been removed, so it’s better than it was six months ago. I think you are confused to where I am puzzled about resistance. It is not > about having rake tasks. I agree that they are easy enough to add and > maintain, and that whining about them would be quite ridiculous. That’s not > my point, however. My point is that there would be more contributions if it > were not a single monolithic repository. I also think most of the historic > benefits of having a monolithic repo can be mitigated with submodules and an > automated build and integration server. > > Feel free to disagree. I don’t really disagree with you at all. I use that same strategy myself on my own projects. I just don’t want to volunteer to restructure the entire project, especially if people are actively working on integration scenarios. Yes, the project was originally in both TFS and git, so it had to play nice with both. Other options are now open. Hence why I suggested forking it and showing a better structure. I dunno, it looks really, really similar to the IronRuby repo on GitHub to > me. Is this synched with the GitHub repo? Is this where all the “Project > Merlin” changes are coming from? I believe the sync is one-way, IronRuby includes IronPython. I’m sure the similarity in structure comes from the internal TFS repos that were used and the fact that the teams were both working on the DLR together. Someone please correct me if this is wrong. Cheers, Ryan ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2010, 5:22am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/29 "2010-10-24T05:22:32Z")
FWIW having separate IronRuby, IronPython, and Common repos that are sub moduled(is that a word?) would make sense, that way changes that are done in Common by both people working on Ruby and Python are easily shared.. the current configuration feels.. fragile. Perhaps the BEST thing to do is to layout what a more reasonable structure could look like in concrete terms rather then just complaining about the current setup. The repo in general needs some love though, build instructions should be in the README, and the current layout could use some explanations, some files that seem to be needed are incorrect or in places different than project files expect (specifically thinking of App.config here) I think the fundamental problem is the current repo was never really put together with the idea of someone coming in blind to it.. the only way to change that is to.. well start changing it. 🙂 On the subject of the rake tasks, when the rake files were originally there xbuild was nowhere near the state it is now, and it WAS a pain to maintain, especially across platforms, we probably should have some linux scripts to call xbuild though. The most important thing, in my opinion, is that these discussions are now occurring. On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Mike M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > > > > > And you are speaking like someone who has tried hard several times to > > > > > repository as some sort of sub module… > > were not a single monolithic repository. I also think most of the historic > > I dunno, it looks really, really similar to the IronRuby repo on GitHub to > me. Is this synched with the GitHub repo? Is this where all the “Project > Merlin” changes are coming from? > > * * * > > Ironruby-core mailing list > [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) > [http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core](http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/ironruby-core) – Michael L. IronRuby MVP > **[Michael Letterle's Blog ·](https://blog.prokrams.com/)** ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2010, 1:48pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/30 "2010-10-24T13:48:30Z")
> I have to respecify DEBUG since I’m redefining the DefineConstants > property. > > Running would have worked as long as you didn’t try to call that method 🙂 I would love to see your work. Ive been meaning to package ironruby for gentoo linux for ages, but so far have not got around to it. The main reason for this is that it doesn’t build “naked”. Gentoo has a policy of staying as close to upstream as possible combined with me being lazy and until a couple of days ago was unsure of whether I could contribute patches upstream. none of those made me particularly motivated to create patches 🙂 If you have made changes I would 1. like to get them merged into ironruby. so #if MONO’s would be nice instead of a straight fix. (assuming they are acceptable) 2. like to get the issue fixed in mono (if its that doc one for which there is already a bug, but also that cast from dynamic to object one) so please can we file bugs upstream too. On a more general note. if you are interested in ruby on gentoo I suggest you have a look at a fellow dev’s blog [1]. Its an interesting read and you won’t be disappointed 🙂 Really please read it, you might learn some of the challenges gentooers currently face. > From a linux packaging perspective. Ultimately I would hope that we can > acheive nice, easy (for everyone), reproducable builds. Im perfectly > happy > with msbuild, but could we add bat/sh files that call msbuild/xbuild to > build > specific parts of the project. Could we document all the options > available to > configure the build (including defines if necessary, etc). -Alistair. [1] [RubyNG – Flameeyes's Weblog](http://blog.flameeyes.eu/tag/rubyng) [2] [https://bugs.gentoo.org/show\_bug.cgi?id=94374](https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94374) ps. Does ironruby have a irc channel, other place where dev’s hang out? ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 11:11am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/31 "2010-10-25T11:11:10Z")
The project directory structure is a mess. Dozens of executable files in the versioning and what not. ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 1:55pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/32 "2010-10-25T13:55:32Z")
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:57 AM, Michael L. \< [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)\> wrote: > FWIW having separate IronRuby, IronPython, and Common repos that are > sub moduled(is that a word?) would make sense, that way changes that > are done in Common by both people working on Ruby and Python are > easily shared.. the current configuration feels.. fragile. There is a major problem: different vcs tools. I guess the IronPython project will stay with TFS/SVN while IronRuby will use git(hub). Having common submodule repos managed by different VCS would be a world of pain. There is no way of dividing the project into submodules if IronPython doesn’t move to github/git. Maybe some git-svn magic would help and mirror versions on github of the svn repositories would be needed. I think that another major problem the IronRuby project has are the 4 sites with IronRuby content. There are like 4 sites now on github, rubyforge, [ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net) and the codeplex with different content on ironruby. This is madness, IronPython as only 2 sites, [ironpython.net](http://ironpython.net) and codeplex and that makes sence. When I looked into the project I was just confused, because I couldn’t find any information and the little bits of Information were scattered and outdated. And this is a real dilemma, because you just can’t move away from any of these sites: you have to stay at codeplex at because it is an Iron project, you have to stay at rubyforge because it is ruby afterall, you can’t move from github, because all the ruby kids use git, so there is only [ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net) left, but you can’t get rid of that either, it’s after all the ironruby domain. The purposes of the sites need to be trimmed down: use codeplex and rubyforge only for binary distribution, github for versioning, issue tracking and wiki and [ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net) as a presentation site just like [ironpython.net](http://ironpython.net) is, cut the documentation out of it and stuff it in the github wiki, redudancy is hard to version. I don’t think that keeping the issue tracking system on codeplex really helps in any way: people who are interested only in IronRuby have to register now on codeplex and github, people who are interested in bot iron projects will have to register on both anyway. I guess splitting up this this project is a nasty nasty dilemma, because the project tries to unite different communities which have different tool preferences. ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 8:05pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/33 "2010-10-25T20:05:38Z")
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Andrius Bentkus \< [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)\> wrote: > There is a major problem: different vcs tools. I guess the IronPython > project will stay with TFS/SVN while IronRuby will use git(hub). Having > common submodule repos managed by different VCS would be a world of pain. > There is no way of dividing the project into submodules if IronPython > doesn’t move to github/git. Maybe some git-svn magic would help and mirror > versions on github of the svn repositories would be needed. I don’t think this would be too difficult to work around. There is already some process that replicates changes from the IronPython’s CodePlex repo to IronRuby’s GitHub repo. If the current monolithic project structure were broken up into submoldules, you could have just IronPython’s CodePlex being replicated to an IronPython git repo. I think that another major problem the IronRuby project has are the 4 sites > it’s after all the ironruby domain. > The purposes of the sites need to be trimmed down: use codeplex and > rubyforge only for binary distribution, github for versioning, issue > tracking and wiki and [ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net) as a presentation site just like > [ironpython.net](http://ironpython.net) is, cut the documentation out of it and stuff it in the > github wiki, redudancy is hard to version. > I don’t think that keeping the issue tracking system on codeplex really > helps in any way: people who are interested only in IronRuby have to > register now on codeplex and github, people who are interested in bot iron > projects will have to register on both anyway. I don’t see the number of content sites as a major problem. Rubyforge is being phased out in favor of better tools, so I don’t think its a long term solution. (Even gem hosting has moved to [rubygems.org](http://rubygems.org) instead of [gems.rubyforge.org](http://gems.rubyforge.org).) I don’t think the [ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net) site is holding the project back at all, but I agree it could be better. I think a better solution would be to replace it with a jekyll site running on GitHub. Just point the [ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net) domain to GitHub and you’re done. The reason I like the jekyll approach is because it makes it much easier for folks to create and improve web content. Its just a pull request away from being published. I think that system works really well, and its free. It doesn’t really matter where downloads are hosted, as long as ironruby.netlinks to them. But they could just as easily be hosted on GitHub. The only thing that I’m aware is being used at CodePlex is the ticketing. Again, I think there are better ticketing solutions out there, most of them free for open source projects. I don’t really see a need for CodePlex myself, but I understand the desire to stay on it for some things. Its probable that you could also push the jekyll content to CodePlex (and Rubyforge) if that was desired. > I guess splitting up this this project is a nasty nasty dilemma, because > the project tries to unite different communities which have different tool > preferences. All the more reason to have separate repositories, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/34 "2010-10-25T20:41:23Z")
Can you be more specific? What’s wrong with the structure (other than LCA\_RESTRICTED directories, which I agree were there only to satisfy our lawyers but can be now merged into other directories)? Yes, there are executable files checked in. These are tools that are needed for running scripts, tests and various code generators. Tomas From: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] On Behalf Of Andrius Bentkus Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 12:51 AM To: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Contributing? The project directory structure is a mess. Dozens of executable files in the versioning and what not. ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 8:42pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/35 "2010-10-25T20:42:39Z")
As someone who attempted to dive into IronRuby a couple of months ago, I found it difficult to discern the “IronRuby Story” from the various websites. By that I mean that was not immediately obvious to me what information was current and what was outdated. I’d like to see an executive summary of the project that is updated at least once a month and perhaps a more conspicuous hub for FeRb activity. (For example, see the one page site we have for Caliburn → [http://www.caliburnproject.com/](http://www.caliburnproject.com/)) I’m .NET dev, but a ruby beginner. However, we’re also a git shop, OSS enthusiasts, and so on. That’s just to say that tooling and culture were not a roadblock. I’d also be interested in contributing to the effort of web presence. Christopher ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 8:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/36 "2010-10-25T20:43:55Z")
My only comment on the sites: 1. github = source control, 2. rubyforge = mailing list, 3. codeplex = issue tracker/binary distro, 4. [ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net) = documentaiton 1 and 2 are pretty set, I see no reason to change from them. 3 is probably fine as well, though having source control and issue tracking in one location may be desirable. 1. Using gh-pages is an interesting idea, is [ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net) being hosted at Microsoft’s expense or one of the team members? That would probably have some bearing on that. Regardless, I’d rather see a nice README first. 🙂 On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:27 PM, Mike M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I don’t think this would be too difficult to work around. There is already > some process that replicates changes from the IronPython’s CodePlex repo to > IronRuby’s GitHub repo. If the current monolithic project structure were > broken up into submoldules, you could have just IronPython’s CodePlex being > replicated to an IronPython git repo. > > > This I agree with. The current repo structure is counter-intuitive IMHO. – Michael L. IronRuby MVP > **[Michael Letterle's Blog ·](https://blog.prokrams.com/)** ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 9:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/37 "2010-10-25T21:37:17Z")
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Michael L. \< [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)\> wrote: > Regardless, I’d rather see a nice README first. 🙂 +1 ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 9:47pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/38 "2010-10-25T21:47:57Z")
Yes, I agree our web sites need some work. Jimmy, what is that status of the new design you started working on (the one [IronPython.net](http://IronPython.net) has already)? Tomas From: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] On Behalf Of Christopher Bennage Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 11:20 AM To: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Contributing? As someone who attempted to dive into IronRuby a couple of months ago, I found it difficult to discern the “IronRuby Story” from the various websites. By that I mean that was not immediately obvious to me what information was current and what was outdated. I’d like to see an executive summary of the project that is updated at least once a month and perhaps a more conspicuous hub for FeRb activity. (For example, see the one page site we have for Caliburn → [http://www.caliburnproject.com/](http://www.caliburnproject.com/)) I’m .NET dev, but a ruby beginner. However, we’re also a git shop, OSS enthusiasts, and so on. That’s just to say that tooling and culture were not a roadblock. I’d also be interested in contributing to the effort of web presence. Christopher ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 9:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/39 "2010-10-25T21:56:10Z")
Let’s assume IronPython moves to github. There would be two options: 1. ``` We could just rename the current IronRuby repo to ``` “DynamicLanguages” repo and IronPython can use it as it is (more or less). 1. ``` It might be possible to split the repo to 3 parts - IronRuby ``` specific, IronPython specific, and DLR, make a submodule for each and combine those submodules into “DynamicLanguages” repo. So what’s exactly the effective difference among the repo built this way and 1)? AFAICT it’s only that super-module doesn’t track the head of the sub-module automatically. You need to manually update it to the latest version. How does that help us? If we have a (single) CI server that makes sure that both IronPython’s and IronRuby’s heads are passing all tests, what is the advantage of not using the latest source code of each other? Or am I missing something (maybe I misunderstand what git submodule can do)? PS: All this is orthogonal to minor refactoring of the current directory structure that is a no-brainer and I already mentioned them (like removing LCA\_RESTRICTED). Tomas From: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid [[mailto:removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid)] On Behalf Of Mike M. Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 10:28 AM To: removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid Subject: Re: [Ironruby-core] Contributing? On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:22 AM, Andrius Bentkus \ wrote: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:57 AM, Michael L. \ wrote: FWIW having separate IronRuby, IronPython, and Common repos that are sub moduled(is that a word?) would make sense, that way changes that are done in Common by both people working on Ruby and Python are easily shared… the current configuration feels… fragile. There is a major problem: different vcs tools. I guess the IronPython project will stay with TFS/SVN while IronRuby will use git(hub). Having common submodule repos managed by different VCS would be a world of pain. There is no way of dividing the project into submodules if IronPython doesn’t move to github/git. Maybe some git-svn magic would help and mirror versions on github of the svn repositories would be needed. I don’t think this would be too difficult to work around. There is already some process that replicates changes from the IronPython’s CodePlex repo to IronRuby’s GitHub repo. If the current monolithic project structure were broken up into submoldules, you could have just IronPython’s CodePlex being replicated to an IronPython git repo. I think that another major problem the IronRuby project has are the 4 sites with IronRuby content. There are like 4 sites now on github, rubyforge, [ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net)[http://ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net) and the codeplex with different content on ironruby. This is madness, IronPython as only 2 sites, [ironpython.net](http://ironpython.net)[http://ironpython.net](http://ironpython.net) and codeplex and that makes sence. When I looked into the project I was just confused, because I couldn’t find any information and the little bits of Information were scattered and outdated. And this is a real dilemma, because you just can’t move away from any of these sites: you have to stay at codeplex at because it is an Iron project, you have to stay at rubyforge because it is ruby afterall, you can’t move from github, because all the ruby kids use git, so there is only [ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net)[http://ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net) left, but you can’t get rid of that either, it’s after all the ironruby domain. The purposes of the sites need to be trimmed down: use codeplex and rubyforge only for binary distribution, github for versioning, issue tracking and wiki and [ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net)[http://ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net) as a presentation site just like [ironpython.net](http://ironpython.net)[http://ironpython.net](http://ironpython.net) is, cut the documentation out of it and stuff it in the github wiki, redudancy is hard to version. I don’t think that keeping the issue tracking system on codeplex really helps in any way: people who are interested only in IronRuby have to register now on codeplex and github, people who are interested in bot iron projects will have to register on both anyway. I don’t see the number of content sites as a major problem. Rubyforge is being phased out in favor of better tools, so I don’t think its a long term solution. (Even gem hosting has moved to [rubygems.org](http://rubygems.org)[http://rubygems.org](http://rubygems.org) instead of [gems.rubyforge.org](http://gems.rubyforge.org)[http://gems.rubyforge.org](http://gems.rubyforge.org).) I don’t think the [ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net)[http://ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net) site is holding the project back at all, but I agree it could be better. I think a better solution would be to replace it with a jekyll site running on GitHub. Just point the [ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net)[http://ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net) domain to GitHub and you’re done. The reason I like the jekyll approach is because it makes it much easier for folks to create and improve web content. Its just a pull request away from being published. I think that system works really well, and its free. It doesn’t really matter where downloads are hosted, as long as [ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net)[http://ironruby.net](http://ironruby.net) links to them. But they could just as easily be hosted on GitHub. The only thing that I’m aware is being used at CodePlex is the ticketing. Again, I think there are better ticketing solutions out there, most of them free for open source projects. I don’t really see a need for CodePlex myself, but I understand the desire to stay on it for some things. Its probable that you could also push the jekyll content to CodePlex (and Rubyforge) if that was desired. I guess splitting up this this project is a nasty nasty dilemma, because the project tries to unite different communities which have different tool preferences. All the more reason to have separate repositories, IMO. ---
**Author:** ![mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/m/53a042/32.png) [@mike-moscow](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/mike-moscow)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2010, 10:52pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941/40 "2010-10-25T22:52:00Z")
Hey, On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 8:19 PM, Tomas M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > 1. > > ``` > It might be possible to split the repo to 3 parts – IronRuby > > ``` > > specific, IronPython specific, and DLR, make a submodule for each and > combine those submodules into “DynamicLanguages” repo. So what’s exactly the > effective difference among the repo built this way and 1)? The difference is that it then becomes easier for people that are only interested in either IronPython or IronRuby to track commits. There will be a timeline for each modules. And you get to follow the ones you’re interested in. And if you’re only interested in one, your timeline isn’t «polluted» with comments or commits from the others. Jb [Previous page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941.md?page=1) [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/contributing/197941.md?page=3)