> On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 7:34 AM, John Trupiano <jtrupi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 4:24 AM, David Chelimsky <dchelim...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:

> >> On Feb 28, 11:20 pm, Nick Quaranto <n...@quaran.to> wrote:
> >> > Hey folks, thanks to some great work from John Trupiano we now have
> gem
> >> > yank
> >> > live on the site. I need to work on the API/Gem documentation on the
> >> > site
> >> > and help.rubygems, but it takes every concern we had during our
> previous
> >> > discussions into account.

> >> > * yanked gems are de-indexed but still available for download.
> >> > example:http://staging.rubygems.org/gems/bills/versions/0.0.1
> >> > * if people still need their gems removed permanently from the site we
> >> > can
> >> > do that, just with a support request.
> >> > * once all versions of a gem have been de-indexed, the namespace goes
> up
> >> > for
> >> > grabs from the next user to push to it.

> >> > To play with it you'll need gemcutter 0.5.0.pre (gem install gemcutter
> >> > --pre). Any feedback would be appreciated.

> >> Is there a means of un-yanking a yanked gem? Would it just be re-
> >> pushing it?

> > David, at this time, yes that will suit your purposes.  Though for what
> it's
> > worth I'm not exactly a fan of how it works at this time.  Nick and I
> talked
> > about adding a -f option that you'd have to pass to overwrite a gem
> release,
> > but that has not been implemented yet.

> I think overwriting an existing release is a bad idea. Imagine the
> confusion when people say they're using foo-1.0.3, but some have the
> version released in January and the others in March.

> I haven't looked at the code related to yanking, but if whatever bit
> is getting flipped is outside the gem file, I'd like a means of
> flipping it back while keeping the existing gem as/is. Reasonable?
> Doable?