On Jun 9, 2011, at 1:06 PM, James Tucker wrote: > On Jun 9, 2011, at 10:42 AM, Evan Phoenix wrote: >> The direction currently is focused on the developer having that control >> rather than a gem being able to take control when it's installed. If a user >> would like to use yard, they can set `:document: "yard"` in their .gemrc >> (could be the system one or the user one). We feel like this addresses the >> first concern, namely that users are able to specify yard generate all their >> docs. >> >> The 2nd issue how should a gem indicate "i'd like tool X to generate docs >> for me". This was what has_rdoc did previously. I've committed the ability >> to set metadata, so my plan was to allow a gem to specify a "document" key >> in the metadata would would function the same as the --document CLI option. >> This way, a gem can have control of how it's documentation be generated if >> it wishes. >> >> How do these sound? > > Might it be sensible for that to indicate a document type/style rather than a > tool, and then to infer "a compatible document generator", for future safety?
This type of feature should be a suggestion, not a commandment. When I install a gem I would rather see some documentation than no documentation. If the named tool doesn't isn't installed documentation generation should fall back to the user's preference via --document then to the default (rdoc). _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems Rubygems-developers@rubyforge.org http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
