I'd probably still keep the docs up there since they are versioned and provide a reasonable fallback, but I agree that providing a link to the docs in the gemspec is not a bad idea. If that existed I'd make it the first link to documentation *above* all of the gemtacular generated ones.
V/r Anthony On 1/17/07, TRANS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/13/07, Anthony Eden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've just deployed an update to gemtacular which links to the rdocs > > which are generated on the server. This is currently experimental as I > > am aware that some gems cannot be rdoc'd without errors, however for > > most gems there are at least *some* sort of rdocs in there. > > > > To get to the RDoc links you need to actually view the details about a > > gem...eventually I'll make the latest RDoc'd version available in > > lists as well. > > > > Comments and suggestions are welcome. > > Might be nice if the gemspec has a field for a url to the rdocs. Then > the server wouldn't need to generate all of them -- only the ones that > lacked the url. This would allow those who supply the url to fashion > the rdocs according to the project's needs (ex- Facets has two sets of > rdocs, trying to make one set out of it makes a mess.) > > t. > _______________________________________________ > Rubygems-developers mailing list > Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org > http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers > -- Cell: 808 782-5046 Current Location: Melbourne, FL _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
