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.)
Sounds like a pretty serious edge case to me. RDoc isn't something you generally make a link to. It's something that lives inside your source and is generated. For all but the rare edge case, I think this would go unused. Chad _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
