Your PR #151 was opened May 4, 2025 and merged 2 days later.
The repeated `chat.to_llm` message bug was reported Apr 30 2025, and fixed May 6, 2025, about 27 minutes after your comment.
It only showed up when reusing the same Rails chat object for multiple turns in the same Ruby object lifetime, e.g. `chat.ask("first"); chat.ask("second")` inside one controller action or one background job.
The usual flow is one turn per request/job, where the record is reloaded each time. Also, it did not overwrite records; it duplicated messages in the in-memory request context.
Gemini tool calling shipped in 1.0, schema support landed in 1.4, and observability landed in 1.16.
As for "the most trivial of applications": check the docs. RubyLLM goes well beyond that, and several multi-million-dollar companies use it in production every day.
Since a few mentioned Responses API: the reason why it wasn't implemented in 1.x is because RubyLLM 1.x effectively assumes a 1:1 mapping between provider and protocol. That assumption no longer holds since OpenAI has 2 protocols with different capabilities, and to access all VertexAI models we need to support a bunch under that single provider.
Therefore, a major refactoring to split Protocols and from Providers was needed, as well as a way to route different models to different Protocols under the same Provider, transparently.
That's one of the many things that's gonna ship with RubyLLM 2.0.
It should be possible to move within Europe, then when the liquidity event happens tax me from the countries where I've lived, proportionally to the time I've lived there.
If you want to move out of Europe, you get the exit tax as before.
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe there was an issue with the "place of effective management" or perhaps the company address not being in your federal state.
That sucks, my fellow Italian. I haven't looked into our country since I live abroad for a long time, but I'm also paying health insurance here which is not cheap at all, and haven't added it to the post since it's not necessarily a company spend.
That is refreshing to hear. Unfortunately I can't get out because of exit tax, an unrealized capital gains tax for the privilege of leaving the country. That is way worse than what I mention in this post and will get its own post soon.
> Also, the same PR was reverted a bit later, IIRC
No. Your #151 was merged. The regressions it introduced were patched the next day in #157/#159.
Cheers!