rubyspec

At the time of terminating RubySpec not a single MRI contributor had committed any code back to the main RubySpec repository for over a year.

The problem is that RubySpec isn't used to TDD cross-implementation features.

Matz doesn't do rubyspec, so we don't do rubyspec.

Does anyone have any concrete information about why Matz and the Ruby team are opposed to using RubySpec then?

Brian has been paid to work on Rubinius and RubySpec full time for at least 6 years.

Made their own formal specification RubySpec isn't a formal specification in any way, shape or form.

RubySpec is a busy assistant trying to keep up with all of its bosses' demands.

My understanding is that the standard will largely be compliant with RubySpec, pioneered by Rubinius.

That's because they decided to drop their efforts in 2013, because RubySpec broke their build.

RubySpec is nothing more than Ruby code doing things that worked in the previous version.

We asked whether RubySpec could be part of the specification but were told that it was not appropriate to include it.

It's troublesome to conflate the bulk of that proposal with the reception of RubySpec itself.

Even with a "RubySpec-compatible" implementation, you have no way of knowing if your application will run or not, which kind of defeats the purpose.

It may be that some of the Ruby folks would've been receptive to a more limited proposal like "all released versions of Ruby should pass RubySpec", but we don't live in the universe where that happened.

Ruby as a whole is absolutely stronger for the "new projects" (RBX, JRuby, Topaz); while issues like this can become divisive, I'll argue that RBX has been a net positive to the Ruby community, both because of RubySpec (a different perspective is valuable, even if it doesn't become the official spec) and because a new approach to a problem generally ends up leaking improvements all over the ecosystem.