Gemcutter to become default gem host

* They quit moving things around.

* That the username-gemname thing from github disappears. I want to have one official gem. Genuine forks in the sense of people deciding to develop the project in a different direction should have to pick a new name.

But since they didn't, I'm glad they have decided to effectively move hosting to S3 (which is essentially what this change is about). There seems to be a tangible difference between the old hosting speed and s3's bandwidth (especially for people hosting their apps on EC2).

I have gems and and an account on rubyforge.org. Do I get a say in this being replicated? Can I opt out?

Were people with accounts on rubyforge.org notified and asked about this? Maybe I missed the mail, but this is the first I'm hearing about it.

There may be no reason for me to care one way or another, but there's an off-putting aspect to all this that I can't quite put my finger on. It mostly feels like Yet Another Ruby Flavor of the Month, something quietly decided off someplace and then declared as The Way It Is.

That's no doubt unfair to people working on gemcutter, but at one time RAA was the way to go with code, then it was rubyforge.org, then gem hosting on GitHub was teh hawtness, but then suddenly it wasn't, but now we have gemcutter.

I liked the all around ease of github hosting, but with the gem option gone I'm now hosting my own gems, and see less and less reason to count on anyone else for that.

I'll probably now fetch whatever code I have on rubyforge (most of it quite old and near forgotten, with current code hosted elsewhere), delete the projects, and close the account.

Major props to Tom and gang, their efforts made a giant difference to the Ruby crowd, but centralized anything is less and less appealing to me.

The rubyforge guys need to be congratulated for willing to give up their role as the official gem hosters and not let their egos get in the way of progress that benefits the whole community.