[Rubygems-developers] Docs found by google seem old.

Daniel Berger djberg96 at gmail.com
Fri Jan 18 21:24:14 EST 2008

Eric Hodel wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2008, at 08:34 AM, Jim Weirich wrote:
>> On Jan 17, 2008, at 11:03 AM, Jeremy Hinegardner wrote:
>>> Jim, you should give webby a try too : http://webby.rubyforge.org/
>> Sigh.  Everytime I mention this, someone suggests a DIFFERENT static
>> website generator.  Who would have thought there was so much
>> competition in this area.
>> So, why webby over nanoc and webgen?
> While we're sighing over dueling static website generators, why not  
> use rdoc*?
> This way users can browse documentation with `gem server` even when  
> they don't have the internet.
> At the very least, it would be nice if we could re-use whatever other  
> static files that are generated for documentation in RDoc.
> * Yes, there are various problems with RDoc, but this is a forward- 
> looking statement, as I have partially addressed that nasty frames  
> issue, and am working my way up towards doing something about  
> Gem::Specification's undocumented methods.

What do you think of this?




More information about the Rubygems-developers mailing list