Let me update my sweet gems #537

Closed
mame opened this Issue Feb 27, 2013 · 19 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
7 participants

mame commented Feb 27, 2013

I cannot update my gems named "1234567890_" and "_" maybe because of the change of #426.

$ gem push pkg/1234567890_-1.1.gem
Pushing gem to https://rubygems.org...
There was a problem saving your gem: Name must include at least one letter

I'm happy if you would accept my joke and give me a way to work around this restriction.

(Seriously, the broken gemspec of 1234567890_, which was created by an old hoe, causes a severe issue on a user side; gem command does not work at all after a user executes "gem install 1234567890_". I'd like to fix this issue by updating the gem.)

mame commented Apr 12, 2013

bump!

It is too bad we can't update a public gem being released, isn't it?

Contributor

tenderlove commented Apr 12, 2013

/cc @qrush @evanphx

I guess there were already gems (specifically @mame's gem) that uses all numbers as the gem name here. Maybe we can relax the restrictions from #426?

I don't see why we can't also allow _ in the regexp.

mame commented May 7, 2013

bump!

Could you allow me to update existing gems at least?

@ghost ghost assigned qrush May 7, 2013

The website shouldn't be more strict than rubygems packaging. Please fix this.

Contributor

envygeeks commented May 7, 2013

I'm not for or against this but of course the gem build command should be more lax because building a gem in no way implies that it will be pushed publicly, unless some how the ability to host your own gems has suddenly disappeared. One mans naming conventions are not another and RubyGems.org uses Gem and decides it's own standards outside of the RubyGems does it not?

mame commented May 8, 2013

I'd like you to focus on the immediate issue. Could you please let me update my broken gems by any way? All I want is a workaround, for example, relaxing the restriction tentatively. I'd like to stop releasing a harmful gem asap. Please discuss the right naming convention after that.

I don't know why rubygems.org wants to use different conventions from RubyGems. Anyway, it shouldn't be more strict than any existing gems, I think.

mame commented May 19, 2013

Bump...

Any rubygems.org maintainer watches this?

Owner

qrush commented May 19, 2013

I have had not had time to help with this issue, sorry. I do watch all of
the issues. This seems completely reasonable to fix and clearly was a
mistake.

That being said it's a pretty confusing gem name. It almost seems like a
typo and I'm surprised it actually worked it the first place.

On Sunday, May 19, 2013, Yusuke Endoh wrote:

Bump...

Any rubygems.org maintainer watches this?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com/rubygems/rubygems.org/issues/537#issuecomment-18118555
.

mame commented Jun 7, 2013

Bump.

I can't update the existing gems for a long time. It is a significant problem, isn't it? If so, please give high priority.
If you don't think so, please delete the gems. It is better than continuing to release the harmful gems. I can't trust rubygems.org any more in this case.

It seems reasonable that gem names should only be restricted to the new format upon creation, that way, all existing gems can be updated without validation errors.

mame commented Jun 23, 2013

Bump.

Contributor

envygeeks commented Jun 23, 2013

Annoyingly bumping something without any real extra input is not going to get it fixed faster.

@sferik sferik closed this in #572 Jun 23, 2013

mame commented Jun 24, 2013

Thank you for your time and consideration.
I've tried to push my gem, but unfortunately it still fails:

$ gem push pkg/1234567890_-1.1.gem 
Pushing gem to https://rubygems.org...
There was a problem saving your gem: Name must include at least one letter

Does it take some time for the fix to be actually deployed?

Owner

dwradcliffe commented Jun 24, 2013

@mame Yes the code has changed on GitHub but the changes haven't been deployed yet.

mame commented Jun 24, 2013

I see, thank you! I hope it will be deployed soon. Should I create another ticket to deploy somewhere?

Owner

dwradcliffe commented Jun 24, 2013

No need for another ticket.

Owner

dwradcliffe commented Jun 24, 2013

@mame Can you try again? Changes should be deployed now.

mame commented Jun 24, 2013

@dwradcliffe Succeeded. Thank you all very much for everything!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment