What is the correct protocol/etiquette for forking a Ruby/Rails gem on Github that may be maintained as an ongoing, parallel fork? -

What is the correct protocol/etiquette for forking a Ruby/Rails gem on Github that may be maintained as an ongoing, parallel fork? -

recently used nice gem created single developer, hosted on github.

during work, had modify substantially, adding improvements. project-specific, others gem-specific, , others were, well, standalone improvements.

for gem-specific improvements (e.g., bugfix), forked repo, applied fix, , made pull request.

then, however, noticed standalone improvements kind of fell category of parallel, ongoing, fork of original gem. clearer, you've seen before; rewrote views of original gem work twitter bootstrap framework. so, pushed github well, but, of course, didn't create pull request–instead, updated readme explain different, , credit original author of gem.

my question is, else 1 supposed in case, presuming gem else wants utilize , published on rubygems, etc? should edit .gemspec , maintain original author's info intact, augment info authors/email fields, , rewrite whatever else has changed? or should 1 rewrite .gemspec?

also, if original distro has in place remote testing frameworks (like travis.yml), should these removed, or left in place?

are there other files must changed/recreated?

so far have updated

.gemspec readme.md changelog.md lib/libraryname/version.rb #called constant in .gemspec

the lastly 1 raises separate bonus question in itself, how versioning work in parallel distros?

sounds handled bugfix / fork already.

depending on license of gem, release yourname-originalname.

you've made substantial changes community whole may interested in , accepted standard forking , releasing.

it solves bonus question. alter whatever want release. it's new project now. still credit original dev of course of study :)

ruby-on-rails ruby github rubygems gem