«

Is there a project to keep Gems documentation up to date? Seems like
gems troubleshooting occurs a lot here and at least some of the
questions are FAQ. (For example, the "fix gems! no, fix debian!"
argument that seems to wage from time to time; it'd be nice to have
docs that would just nip that in the bud.)

--
Giles Bowkett

Podcast: http://hollywoodgrit.blogspot.com
Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com

On Jan 12, 2008, at 07:59 AM, Giles Bowkett wrote:
> Is there a project to keep Gems documentation up to date?

Yes, it's called RubyGems. If you find the documentation lacking,
submit a patch to the tracker on the RubyGems project on Rubyforge.
RDoc patches are preferred.

> Seems like gems troubleshooting occurs a lot here and at least some
> of the
> questions are FAQ. (For example, the "fix gems! no, fix debian!"
> argument that seems to wage from time to time; it'd be nice to have
> docs that would just nip that in the bud.)

Documenting third-party modifications to RubyGems is not RubyGems'
job. RubyGems should document what's in RubyGems.D

> > Is there a project to keep Gems documentation up to date?
>
> Yes, it's called RubyGems. If you find the documentation lacking,
> submit a patch to the tracker on the RubyGems project on Rubyforge.
> RDoc patches are preferred.

I mailed you a docs patch and you never responded. I apologize that I
didn't know about the tracker, but come on. I tried to give you a
patch before I asked this question. I did find the documentation
lacking and I did submit a patch.

> > Seems like gems troubleshooting occurs a lot here and at least some
> > of the
> > questions are FAQ. (For example, the "fix gems! no, fix debian!"
> > argument that seems to wage from time to time; it'd be nice to have
> > docs that would just nip that in the bud.)
>
> Documenting third-party modifications to RubyGems is not RubyGems'
> job. RubyGems should document what's in RubyGems.D

Well, it's not really ruby-talk's job either. Whoever's job it is, I'm
offering to do it. I just want to put it on the Web somewhere so I
don't have to read the same argument over and over again every three
and a half weeks.

--
Giles Bowkett

Podcast: http://hollywoodgrit.blogspot.com
Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com

On Jan 12, 2008, at 12:09 PM, Giles Bowkett wrote:
>>> Is there a project to keep Gems documentation up to date?
>>
>> Yes, it's called RubyGems. If you find the documentation lacking,
>> submit a patch to the tracker on the RubyGems project on Rubyforge.
>> RDoc patches are preferred.
>
> I mailed you a docs patch and you never responded. I apologize that I
> didn't know about the tracker, but come on. I tried to give you a
> patch before I asked this question. I did find the documentation
> lacking and I did submit a patch.

It might still be in my inbox then, but maybe not. I'm not the only
person who works on RubyGems, so sending it to one of us is probably
going to get your patch lost. The tracker is in same place as most
other Ruby projects, so when I find a bug in something, that's the
first place I look.

Furthermore, by sending a patch only to one person, you reduce the
ability for people to collaborate. Maybe somebody else found the same
issue as you, and was going to write a patch. If you don't use the
tracker, everybody has to grope in the dark.

If I want to patch something in FreeBSD, I don't send a patch to the
first FreeBSD developer's email I come across, I find the tracker, see
if it's been reported, see if it's got a patch, and then do some
work. If I want to patch something in Linux, I don't send an email to
Linus, I go through the appropriate process.

> >>> Is there a project to keep Gems documentation up to date?
> >>
> >> Yes, it's called RubyGems. If you find the documentation lacking,
> >> submit a patch to the tracker on the RubyGems project on Rubyforge.
> >> RDoc patches are preferred.
> >
> > I mailed you a docs patch and you never responded. I apologize that I
> > didn't know about the tracker, but come on. I tried to give you a
> > patch before I asked this question. I did find the documentation
> > lacking and I did submit a patch.
>
> It might still be in my inbox then, but maybe not. I'm not the only
> person who works on RubyGems, so sending it to one of us is probably
> going to get your patch lost. The tracker is in same place as most
> other Ruby projects, so when I find a bug in something, that's the
> first place I look.
>
> Furthermore, by sending a patch only to one person, you reduce the
> ability for people to collaborate. Maybe somebody else found the same
> issue as you, and was going to write a patch. If you don't use the
> tracker, everybody has to grope in the dark.
>
> If I want to patch something in FreeBSD, I don't send a patch to the
> first FreeBSD developer's email I come across, I find the tracker, see
> if it's been reported, see if it's got a patch, and then do some
> work. If I want to patch something in Linux, I don't send an email to
> Linus, I go through the appropriate process.

That's why I said I apologize about not knowing about the tracker.

Where is the tracker? RubyForge?

--
Giles Bowkett

Podcast: http://hollywoodgrit.blogspot.com
Blog: http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com
Portfolio: http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
Tumblelog: http://giles.tumblr.com

On Jan 12, 2008 2:09 PM, Giles Bowkett wrote:
> Well, it's not really ruby-talk's job either. Whoever's job it is, I'm
> offering to do it. I just want to put it on the Web somewhere so I
> don't have to read the same argument over and over again every three
> and a half weeks.

Most issues related to modified versions of RubyGems are about the
Debian package. The people responsible for that can be found at
http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/

Their official policy towards RubyGems can be found at
http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html

Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney

There is also an extreme drought of information about building gems.
There needs to be more documentation written. I wish I were able to
sit down and spend some time on it, but I'm overcommitted right now.

I'd be willing to try to help if someone could create a list of
discrete tasks (e.g., "Document option (x) in a gemspec").

--Jeremy

On Jan 13, 2008 7:02 AM, Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney
<> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 2008 2:09 PM, Giles Bowkett wrote:
> > Well, it's not really ruby-talk's job either. Whoever's job it is, I'm
> > offering to do it. I just want to put it on the Web somewhere so I
> > don't have to read the same argument over and over again every three
> > and a half weeks.
>
> Most issues related to modified versions of RubyGems are about the
> Debian package. The people responsible for that can be found at
> http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/
>
> Their official policy towards RubyGems can be found at
> http://pkg-ruby-extras.alioth.debian.org/rubygems.html
>
> Daniel Brumbaugh Keeney
>
>



--
http://www.jeremymcanally.com/

My books:
Ruby in Practice
http://www.manning.com/mcanally/

My free Ruby e-book
http://www.humblelittlerubybook.com/

My blogs:
http://www.mrneighborly.com/
http://www.rubyinpractice.com/