Add RFC proposal for adding bundle fund #23
Conversation
|
Is there a specific reason why |
I never knew about this attribute before. It certainly makes sense to add there as well. |
|
You can read more details about this "sandboxed, freeform" hash of URIs, in the Specification source code: https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems/blob/master/lib/rubygems/specification.rb#L365 |
|
Ok, I've made a quick change to the RFC to note that this key should go in the |
|
(Glad you liked it. Perhaps it reduces friction!) |
|
I do believe so, especially since it matches rubygems/rubygems#3060 |
|
Is there anything I can do here to move this along? |
|
I’m in favor of this, but I’d like to give the rest of the team a chance to weigh in. Let’s give it 3 more days and then accept if no new comments arrive. 👍🏻 |
text/0000-add-funding-uri.md
Outdated
|
|
||
| I do not believe that displaying a single message indicating gems which need funding reaches this level of annoyance. Therefore, I do not expect `ignore_messages` to have an impact on `bundle fund`, or the `X gems are looking for funding` message printout, nor should an opt-out flag or configuration should be considered at this time. | ||
|
|
||
| `bundle init` should also not add a placeholder for `funding_uri`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you mean bundle gem here? bundle init only just generates a Gemfile
|
This has been open to comment for enough time i think and we're in favor of the RFC. Accepted. |
This is an RFC for the suggestion proposed in #22: adding a
bundle fundcommand which shows information about any gems requiring funding. I look forward to hearing any feedback!