Rename gem from libxml-ruby to libxml

[sferik]

It makes sense for this repository to be named libxml-ruby, to avoid ambiguity with other XML libraries, but the gem name need not include -ruby, since the rubygems package manager is tightly coupled to the Ruby language. Just as the sqlite3-ruby gem was renamed to sqlite, this package’s name should just be libxml.

This also increases consistency between the library’s name and the way it is required.

require 'libxml'

[jondlm]

Wouldn't changing the name break all the Gemfile's that depend on the name remaining the same? I just wonder if this can be done willy nilly.

[sferik]

@jondlm I’m not suggesting we delete the existing gems; just that future versions are released under this new name.

You may want to push one final gem with the name libxml-ruby and a post-install message, notifying users of the new name. You could also re-release all existing libxml-ruby gems under the libxml name. I believe that was done with sqlite3 when it transitioned from sqlite3-ruby. This means users can use the new name, even if they need to use an older version, for whatever reason.

I’m happy to help coordinate this release process, if that’s a blocker to merging patch.

[sferik]

For what it’s worth, bcrypt just made this transition seamlessly with a slightly different approach than what I’ve suggested above. Is there any reason not to move forward with this?

[tjschuck]

Doubly for what it's worth, I stole the slightly different approach from sqlite3 née sqlite3-ruby: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sqlite3-ruby/SlM9WBUeNlQ

[cfis]

I'm not seeing why this is worth doing, the gem has been named this way since day 1 (its probably 7 to 10 yrs old now).

[sferik]

@cfis I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you arguing we should stop trying to make things better after a certain amount of time has passed? If you believe this is an improvement, why shouldn’t we implement it after many years?

[cfis]

I don't see it as an improvement - seems to me that its change for change's sake.

[sferik]

@cfis It’s an improvement because it’s 5 characters shorter without sacrificing clarify. The -ruby at the end is redundant. Or do you think all gems should end in -ruby?

[cfis]

Sure, the -ruby is redundant. But at this point I see the disadvantages of renaming (compatibility) far outweighing the benefits. I know you don't agree, but sorry, I'm going to close this issue. I hope you continue to use libxml-ruby and I'll gladly accept other patches.