[Rubygems-developers] [ANNOUNCE] RubyGems Release 0.8.11

chad at chadfowler.com chad at chadfowler.com
Thu Jul 14 11:38:47 EDT 2005

> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Chad Fowler wrote:
>> On 14-Jul-05, at 6:31 AM, Hugh Sasse wrote:
>>> --- ./lib/rubygems/doc_manager.rb.orig  2005-02-28 23:26:58.000000000
>>> +0000
>>> +++ ./lib/rubygems/doc_manager.rb       2005-06-10 12:42:58.927496000
>>> +0100
>>> @@ -35,7 +35,8 @@
>>>     end
>>>     def generate_rdoc
>>> -      return if @spec.has_rdoc == false
>>> +      # return if @spec.has_rdoc == false
>>> +      # Now taken care of with rescue clause.
>          [...]
>> Sorry, Hugh.  I think that was a simple miss on our part.
>> Though, now that I went to add it, it seems like the first line _should_
>> return if @spec.has_rdoc == false and the rdoc flag wasn't passed on the
>> command line.  That would
> I remember discussion about that flag only being a workaround for
> the rdoc bug[s].  Organic memory may not serve me well here
> though...

Yea, though it was a case where rubygems was generating rdoc for a "super
gem" whose only job was to cause other gems to be installed (over
simplifying), so it actually makes no sense for the gem in question to
have rdoc docs.

>> give the gem author the ability to control default behavior and the end
>> user
>> the ability to override it.  What do you think?
> Then, IMHO, it should default to true regardless of gem authors'
> preferences.  One of the complaints raised against Ruby /was|is/ lack of
> docs, and with {you, Dave, Andy, DHH, et al}'s efforts this problem is
> decreasing, but it should take effort to not provide them.  Yes,
> people on small systems may wish to do that, not enough disk space,
> etc.  People keep telling me small systems are less of a problem
> these days, though :-)

Agreed, though it actually _does_ require effort on the part of the gem
author to not allow rdoc to be generated.  If you don't put "has_rdoc", it
will generate rdocs.  The only way to make it NOT generate rdocs is to
explicitly set has_rdoc to false in your gem spec.

Make sense?


More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list