HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
rubygems-trust
rubygems.org
Ruby2013–2013
rubygems-trust / rubygems.org

rubygems.org

The Ruby community's gem hosting service.

Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
2Distinct people
2Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
16GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

The Ruby community's gem hosting service.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 5:04:57 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by hour2 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2013-02-01 10:22:41 UTC to 2013-02-02 01:15:31 UTC.

012013-02-01 10:00:00 UTC to 2013-02-01 11:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 commentsFeb 1, 10:002013-02-01 11:00:00 UTC to 2013-02-01 12:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-02-01 12:00:00 UTC to 2013-02-01 13:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-02-01 13:00:00 UTC to 2013-02-01 14:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-02-01 14:00:00 UTC to 2013-02-01 15:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-02-01 15:00:00 UTC to 2013-02-01 16:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-02-01 16:00:00 UTC to 2013-02-01 17:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-02-01 17:00:00 UTC to 2013-02-01 18:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsFeb 1, 17:002013-02-01 18:00:00 UTC to 2013-02-01 19:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-02-01 19:00:00 UTC to 2013-02-01 20:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-02-01 20:00:00 UTC to 2013-02-01 21:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-02-01 21:00:00 UTC to 2013-02-01 22:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-02-01 22:00:00 UTC to 2013-02-01 23:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-02-01 23:00:00 UTC to 2013-02-02 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-02-02 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-02-02 01:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2013-02-02 01:00:00 UTC to 2013-02-02 02:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsFeb 2, 01:00

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Feb 1, 10:002013-02-01 10:00:00 UTC2013-02-01 11:00:00 UTC110
Feb 1, 11:002013-02-01 11:00:00 UTC2013-02-01 12:00:00 UTC000
Feb 1, 12:002013-02-01 12:00:00 UTC2013-02-01 13:00:00 UTC000
Feb 1, 13:002013-02-01 13:00:00 UTC2013-02-01 14:00:00 UTC000
Feb 1, 14:002013-02-01 14:00:00 UTC2013-02-01 15:00:00 UTC000
Feb 1, 15:002013-02-01 15:00:00 UTC2013-02-01 16:00:00 UTC000
Feb 1, 16:002013-02-01 16:00:00 UTC2013-02-01 17:00:00 UTC000
Feb 1, 17:002013-02-01 17:00:00 UTC2013-02-01 18:00:00 UTC000
Feb 1, 18:002013-02-01 18:00:00 UTC2013-02-01 19:00:00 UTC000
Feb 1, 19:002013-02-01 19:00:00 UTC2013-02-01 20:00:00 UTC000
Feb 1, 20:002013-02-01 20:00:00 UTC2013-02-01 21:00:00 UTC000
Feb 1, 21:002013-02-01 21:00:00 UTC2013-02-01 22:00:00 UTC000
Feb 1, 22:002013-02-01 22:00:00 UTC2013-02-01 23:00:00 UTC000
Feb 1, 23:002013-02-01 23:00:00 UTC2013-02-02 00:00:00 UTC000
Feb 2, 00:002013-02-02 00:00:00 UTC2013-02-02 01:00:00 UTC000
Feb 2, 01:002013-02-02 01:00:00 UTC2013-02-02 02:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

2 sources
moe·Feb 2, 2013
I didn't claim it solves "roughly the same problem", only a very relevant subset of the problem (integrity) closely related to the unfortunate situation rubygems is in right now. What you call background (docs, tooling, education) is an argument in favor of the simple approach, which is already implemented and just not enforced - in contrast to whipping up new infrastructure of significantly higher complexity from scratch. Also I didn't imply the maintainers are ignorant or lazy, they were merely oblivious. So I'll repeat: The PGP approach is obviously superior, but comes with serious complexity and implementation concerns (there is no native PGP-library in ruby). Consequently it might make sense to add basic security right now, in a minimally intrusive fashion, while a more complete solution is developed. This, by the way, is part of the
Read the rest
discussion that the rubygems team is having right now[1]. [1] https://github.com/rubygems-trust/rubygems.org/wiki/Overview
In Rubygems.org compromised

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.