Continuing Roodi Development

[bf4]

Hey, if you're continuing roodi development #13 I'd love to help out. For review, here are the modifications in my fork that I am using for running metric_fu. If you like, I can remove the namespace-changing commits and any others not not necessary.

Thanks

[bf4]

I'm now maintaining a metric_fu-roodi fork

[evjan]

Hi, sorry about the delay.

Pull request are very welcome! Are all of these still relevant?

[bf4]

Wait, are you still planning on maintaining roodi here? I just switched 'official' development to the metric_fu fork. Are they relevant? I'm using them.

[evjan]

I'm not the previous maintainer. I volunteered to take over the ownership of Roodi from today, since it hadn't received much love lately.

What's the best way of moving forward in your opinion?

[bf4]

Well, if you're now maintaining it, then I'd love to roll this stuff in and help you maintain it here. The PR is what I gathered from forks while roodi languished and I began maintaining for metric_fu. What awful timing.

See the history here, too https://github.com/metricfu/roodi/commits/master

[bf4]

In particular, locking to ruby_parser 2.3 is problematic 66bc3c5 cc: @dkubb

[bf4]

I'd honestly rather make metricfu the official sponsoring organization, pull in any relevant work you've recently done here, and continue over there.

[bf4]

Also, I have a rubyforge account if you want any help / assistance updating http://roodi.rubyforge.org/ to redirect here

[evjan]

Yeah, the timing was bad. Sorry about that, but let's make the best of it.

Regarding moving to metricfu as the organisation: Given that some people are using Roodi without using Metricfu, I'd rather create a new organisation called Roodi and move this repo there instead. That way it is clear that it is not dependent on Metricfu or belongs to it (since Metricfu rather depends on it), but also that it is not tied to a person who is no longer maintaining it. I'll take a look at that asap and then we'll start merging our changes.

[bf4]

On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Peter Evjan notifications@github.comwrote:

Yeah, the timing was bad. Sorry about that, but let's make the best of it.

Regarding moving to metricfu as the organisation: Given that people are
using Roodi without using Metricfu, I'd rather create a new organisation
called Roodi and move this repo there instead. That way it is clear that it
can be run without Metricfu, but it is not tied to a person who is no
longer maintaining it. I'll take a look at that asap and then we'll start
merging our changes.

perfect. It's super easy. You create a github organization, then probably
want to fork a repo there and update his to say 'go there' :) In the
github org, you can have teams so that, for example, you can control the
org, and put me on a team called 'roodi maintainers' that has me on it as a
commiter, then add 'roodi' to that team.

-Benjamin

[evjan]

I did that, only to discover there might be a better way: transferring the repo.

I'll just have a chat to Marty before doing that.

[bf4]

On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Peter Evjan notifications@github.comwrote:

I did that, only to discover there might be a better way: transferring
the repo https://help.github.com/articles/how-to-transfer-a-repository

.

I'll just have a chat to Marty before doing that.

I believe github now offers redirect, so that is an option without side
effects. MetricFu's previous maintainer preferred to keep his repo there
for historical purposes, so that's where I was coming from.

[evjan]

I don't see an option to redirect to another org without transferring it to that org. See here https://github.com/blog/1508-repository-redirects-are-here

[bf4]

Yes, @evjan, that's what I meant, sorry for being unclear.

[bf4]

Can you go into settings for https://github.com/roodi/roodi and enable issues? I'll disable issues in metricfu/roodi and update to point there shortly. I wanted to create an issue to reference this PR.

[evjan]

I've now transferred the repo to the Roodi org. You should be able to create issues now.

Marty and I paired on getting it working with the latest version of ruby_parser and once all those tests are green I'll review your pull requests.

[evjan]

I've merged this, thanks a lot for this!

A few questions:
e659916 - there were no specs for this, when does it happen? I'd love to have specs for all functionality.
9119a3d - What's the benefit of this? I see no difference when running rake with and without it? So removed it for now.

[bf4]

Re: e659916 I don't recall, besides that it crashed. Oh well.

Re: 9119a3d. I don't recall. Probably from a template I was using. If it's not needed, for sure to remove.

[evjan]

Thanks for the feedback! I removed e659916 in 5112286 as I could not provoke it through the specs. The crash is probably handled through the new count_lines logic.