«

Tom Copeland has just deployed my new RubyGems indexer in preparation
for a RubyGems beta.

You should see fewer bulk index updates, and no more missing gems
that you know are there.

It's supposed to be fully backwards-compatible, but I might have
screwed something up.

Details:

http://tomcopeland.blogs.com/juniord...more-reliable-
g.html

http://blog.segment7.net/articles/20...ta-approaching

--
Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The
best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars

On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:04:33AM +0900, Eric Hodel wrote:
> Tom Copeland has just deployed my new RubyGems indexer in preparation
> for a RubyGems beta.
>
> You should see fewer bulk index updates, and no more missing gems
> that you know are there.
>
> It's supposed to be fully backwards-compatible, but I might have
> screwed something up.
>
> Details:
>
> http://tomcopeland.blogs.com/juniord...more-reliable-
> g.html
>
> http://blog.segment7.net/articles/20...ta-approaching

Is the fast index working yet?

Paul

On Oct 5, 2007, at 11:10 , Paul Brannan wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 03:04:33AM +0900, Eric Hodel wrote:
>> Tom Copeland has just deployed my new RubyGems indexer in preparation
>> for a RubyGems beta.
>>
>> You should see fewer bulk index updates, and no more missing gems
>> that you know are there.
>>
>> It's supposed to be fully backwards-compatible, but I might have
>> screwed something up.
>>
>> Details:
>>
>> http://tomcopeland.blogs.com/juniord...more-reliable-
>> g.html
>>
>> http://blog.segment7.net/articles/20...rubygems-beta-
>> approaching
>
> Is the fast index working yet?

The quick index has been in RubyGems since 0.9.2, IIRC, but the way
the indexer was written the files needed for it to function were
missing more than half the time.

--
Poor workers blame their tools. Good workers build better tools. The
best workers get their tools to do the work for them. -- Syndicate Wars