23:19 <technomancy> I'm trying to find rubygems's policy around deleting a gem which takes the name of an existing project; could someone point me in the right direction?

23:28 <havenwood> technomancy: Are you trying to delete your own gem?

23:30 <havenwood> technomancy: What's the gem in question?

23:30 <technomancy> havenwood: no, I'm trying to formalize a policy on another site that's similar to rubygems, and looking for prior art

23:30 <technomancy> (clojars.org)

23:30 <havenwood> technomancy: aha!

23:32 <technomancy> someone published https://clojars.org/postgresql and I think it needs to be deleted because it's just some rando but it looks official, but I want to make sure that action reflects a well-thought-out, documented policy before proceeding.

23:35 <havenwood> technomancy: these gemnames are blacklisted: https://github.com/rubygems/rubygems.org/blob/master/lib/patterns.rb#L10-L96

23:35 <havenwood> technomancy: if you `gem yank` the last version of your gem, it frees up the name if the gem was created within the last month, otherwise the name will be freed in 100 days

23:36 <havenwood> technomancy: RubyGems doesn't reserve "official" names, as far as I know.

23:37 <havenwood> It's first come, first serve.

23:37 <technomancy> havenwood: what if someone has published a gem that isn't on that list, but you realize later that it should be?

23:37 <technomancy> would you wait for a complaint from the maintainer of the official project?

23:37 <havenwood> technomancy: I recall that happening, but I don't remember how i was resolved.

23:37 <havenwood> it*

23:38 <technomancy> OK, so there is no existing documented policy; that's what I was wondering. thanks.

23:38 <havenwood> There might be a policy regarding new additions to the name blacklist, but I don't know it.

23:38 <havenwood> I know they ran into some conflicts when gemifying the stdlib.

23:39 <technomancy> my situation is a little bit different because clojars is always used together with maven central, so the official maintainer of a library might not even be aware that clojars exists.

23:40 <havenwood> technomancy: it seems like pg or postgres would also do for the official postgres clojar, i don't know

23:41 <havenwood> RubyGems doesn't have a convention for designating official gems.

23:41 <havenwood> I suppose you already have nicer namespacing (namespacing at all).

23:42 <havenwood> Actually, doesn't that handle it?

23:43 <technomancy> yeah, this is specifically about when people don't follow the recommendations

23:43 <havenwood> ahhh

23:43 <havenwood> Yeah, since RubyGems doesn't have namespace conventions there's no enforcement.

23:43 <technomancy> makes sense. thanks.

23:43 <havenwood> de nada