> Rubygems has had no commits in the last 10 days and that's not a good sign.
I honestly can't tell if this is satire.
You think no commits for 10 days for a piece of software that has existed for around 20 years is a sign that it's dead?
What kind of code churn do you think this project requires? Perhaps the old development was too unstable if there wasn't a single 10 day window without a commit in 15 years, for what is essentially a solved problem and a tool that people depend on to be stable.
Churn is not just rate of commits it is the changing of the same lines/files/functions repeatedly, AI answers seem to get this wrong a few places I checked which is interesting. Rate of change in itself is not 'instability', it can be a sign of new ideas emerging or lot of other positive things.
Package management cannot be a 'solved problem' or there would be no innovation there, and you don't have to look far to find is not the case.
As for the idea that rubygems is 'dead' (not what mperham said), that is still too early to say for sure, as I imagine mperham would also agree, but it is definitely not a good sign. If we only get a trickle of changes to something that was once a very vibrant and lively community repo then that is to the detriment of the whole Ruby ecosystem. That would also be a bad sign.
Rubygems has 216 open issues right now.[0] Do you think some of them should be addressed? Without maintenance, and any PR's getting merged, they won't.
I honestly can't tell if this is satire.
You think no commits for 10 days for a piece of software that has existed for around 20 years is a sign that it's dead?
What kind of code churn do you think this project requires? Perhaps the old development was too unstable if there wasn't a single 10 day window without a commit in 15 years, for what is essentially a solved problem and a tool that people depend on to be stable.