As part of my effort to become increasingly more involved in the Ruby
community, I would like to volunteer my efforts towards any rdoc -
documentation requirements.
I am also fluent in Spanish and would happily translate documentation as
well!
Thanks in advance!
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.
Jay Bornhoft wrote:
As part of my effort to become increasingly more involved in the Ruby
community, I would like to volunteer my efforts towards any rdoc -
documentation requirements.
Yes. The Ruby Standard Library
--
James Britt
http://www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://beginningruby.com - Beginning Ruby: The Online Book
How's your C? Either way. Ruby itself could always use help with the documentation. There's a working set of guidelines available at:
http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ajjwr9dccrhx_08qfbqt
It's a little bit out of date though. I'll work on updating it now that ruby's in subversion rather than CVS. In the mean time, check out this URL for details on checking out a copy of ruby:
http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/community/ruby-core/#following-ruby
Also, joining the ruby-doc mailing list is a good start.
-Mat
On Jan 2, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Jay Bornhoft wrote:
As part of my effort to become increasingly more involved in the Ruby
community, I would like to volunteer my efforts towards any rdoc -
documentation requirements.I am also fluent in Spanish and would happily translate documentation as
well!Thanks in advance!
Jay Bornhoft wrote:
As part of my effort to become increasingly more involved in the Ruby
community, I would like to volunteer my efforts towards any rdoc -
documentation requirements.I am also fluent in Spanish and would happily translate documentation as
well!Thanks in advance!
SOAP4R is a crucial lib, and has *no* RDoc (other than the
autogenerated). It would be a great benefit to doc this.
I know from experience that when trying to introduce people to Ruby,
when they want to know does Ruby do SOAP, it's a big turn off to not
have any docs...
(While you're at it, http-access2 is related and could use some
revisions...)
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Jay Bornhoft wrote:
As part of my effort to become increasingly more involved in the Ruby
community, I would like to volunteer my efforts towards any rdoc -
documentation requirements.
This touches on two broader topics as well 1) a master prioritized
TODO/Ruby list other than the 'project want ads' on RubyForge and 2)
the state of the rdoc tool itself. A casual search of google doesn't
reveal anything immediately.
Seems like we could use some top priorites for the new year laid out
and focus efforts on those, but probably a little oversimplified given
the scope and number of Ruby projects out there to be done.
Personally I'd like to see RAA/RubyGems registry a-la CPAN-ish stuff
materialize more this year with focus on preventing filename clashes
and namespace registration along with self-documenting code that
produces web site documentation just by uploading it. I don't see that
in RAA currently, but there is a lot going on out there. And then we
could build on that with a community-based test grid and ratings, that
would be cool.
So far I find rdoc far from from the Perl POD or even JavaDoc I grew
accustomed to. I realize there are other priorities. I do wonder why
POD wasn't just stolen verbatum. It didn't seem 'broken' to me. People
write entire books in POD. Please correct me, but I don't believe rdoc
is to that level yet. Would be good to get it there. I'll have to dig
up the rdoc 'project team' info, if any and take a look at todos for
the rdoc tool itself.
Jay Bornhoft wrote:
As part of my effort to become increasingly more involved in the Ruby
community, I would like to volunteer my efforts towards any rdoc -
documentation requirements.
The Watir project is looking for some rdoc help, see the last entry in
this thread:
http://forums.openqa.org/thread.jspa?threadID=5974&tstart=0
How's your C? Either way. Ruby itself could always use help with the
documentation. There's a working set of guidelines available at:http://docs.google.com/View?docid=ajjwr9dccrhx_08qfbqt
It's a little bit out of date though. I'll work on updating it now
that ruby's in subversion rather than CVS. In the mean time, check
out this URL for details on checking out a copy of ruby:Also, joining the ruby-doc mailing list is a good start.
My C is non-existent... the only language I 'know' is Ruby.
I will check out both of the links you suggested, as well as the Ruby
Standard Library, and join myself up for the mailing list.
JB
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
+1 on Soap4R. Its a shame how poorly documented that lib is.
- rob
On 1/2/07, Robert James <srobertjames@gmail.com> wrote:
Jay Bornhoft wrote:
> As part of my effort to become increasingly more involved in the Ruby
> community, I would like to volunteer my efforts towards any rdoc -
> documentation requirements.
>
> I am also fluent in Spanish and would happily translate documentation as
> well!
>
> Thanks in advance!SOAP4R is a crucial lib, and has *no* RDoc (other than the
autogenerated). It would be a great benefit to doc this.I know from experience that when trying to introduce people to Ruby,
when they want to know does Ruby do SOAP, it's a big turn off to not
have any docs...(While you're at it, http-access2 is related and could use some
revisions...)
I too am willing to help document projects, and I will take a look at
Soap4R and see if I can help document it
On 1/2/07, Robert James <srobertjames@gmail.com> wrote:
Jay Bornhoft wrote:
> As part of my effort to become increasingly more involved in the Ruby
> community, I would like to volunteer my efforts towards any rdoc -
> documentation requirements.
>
> I am also fluent in Spanish and would happily translate documentation as
> well!
>
> Thanks in advance!SOAP4R is a crucial lib, and has *no* RDoc (other than the
autogenerated). It would be a great benefit to doc this.I know from experience that when trying to introduce people to Ruby,
when they want to know does Ruby do SOAP, it's a big turn off to not
have any docs...(While you're at it, http-access2 is related and could use some
revisions...)--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
--
Chris Carter
concentrationstudios.com
brynmawrcs.com
Robert James wrote:
Jay Bornhoft wrote:
As part of my effort to become increasingly more involved in the Ruby
community, I would like to volunteer my efforts towards any rdoc -
documentation requirements.I am also fluent in Spanish and would happily translate documentation as
well!Thanks in advance!
SOAP4R is a crucial lib, and has *no* RDoc (other than the autogenerated). It would be a great benefit to doc this.
I know from experience that when trying to introduce people to Ruby, when they want to know does Ruby do SOAP, it's a big turn off to not have any docs...
(While you're at it, http-access2 is related and could use some revisions...)
+1 for SOAP4R. It's crucial such libs are documented. Just my opinion for having to hand implement a SOAP lib in other languages and this being something useful that I'd use if I had to do it again in Ruby.
Mat Schaffer wrote:
Mat, I noticed that this still refers to the ruby_1_8 branch but I
assume helping document stuff for 1.9 is needed as well. I wonder if
matz would prefer documentation patches be submitted for
braches/matzruby or the new yarv-based trunk. Then there is the
question of making sure useful documentation applied to 1_8 that is
still relevant to 1_9/2.0 is also applied there. Anyone know? If not,
I'll take the question to the ruby-doc list. Thanks.
On Jan 2, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Jay Bornhoft wrote:
Rob Muhlestein wrote:
Jay Bornhoft wrote:
> As part of my effort to become increasingly more involved in the Ruby
> community, I would like to volunteer my efforts towards any rdoc -
> documentation requirements.This touches on two broader topics as well 1) a master prioritized
TODO/Ruby list other than the 'project want ads' on RubyForge and 2)
the state of the rdoc tool itself. A casual search of google doesn't
reveal anything immediately.Seems like we could use some top priorites for the new year laid out
and focus efforts on those, but probably a little oversimplified given
the scope and number of Ruby projects out there to be done.Personally I'd like to see RAA/RubyGems registry a-la CPAN-ish stuff
materialize more this year with focus on preventing filename clashes
and namespace registration along with self-documenting code that
produces web site documentation just by uploading it. I don't see that
in RAA currently, but there is a lot going on out there. And then we
could build on that with a community-based test grid and ratings, that
would be cool.So far I find rdoc far from from the Perl POD or even JavaDoc I grew
accustomed to. I realize there are other priorities. I do wonder why
POD wasn't just stolen verbatum. It didn't seem 'broken' to me. People
write entire books in POD. Please correct me, but I don't believe rdoc
is to that level yet. Would be good to get it there. I'll have to dig
up the rdoc 'project team' info, if any and take a look at todos for
the rdoc tool itself.
Ok, I confess I skipped over the "Writing CGI Scripts" section of the
pickax and
missed the stuff about RDoc Templates, which seem to cover anything POD
or JavaDoc every wanted and more with ability to extend, so I think
potential
all-in-rdoc book writers might be covered or easily could be without
too much
additional work. We will really know rdoc is up to snuff when O'reilly
agrees
on a set of RDoc templates to use for rdoc Ruby publications, like they
do for
Perl. Anyone know if such an undertaking/dialog has begun?
The word from Eric is that you should work against the trunk but also provide 1_8 compatible diffs unless the port to 1_8 is trivial. In which case one of the committers can do it by hand. Not sure how that applies to the matzruby branch. That could just be his testbed, in which case it probably shouldn't have much effort spent on documentation.
-Mat
On Jan 3, 2007, at 1:10 AM, Rob Muhlestein wrote:
Mat Schaffer wrote:
On Jan 2, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Jay Bornhoft wrote:
Ruby CoreMat, I noticed that this still refers to the ruby_1_8 branch but I
assume helping document stuff for 1.9 is needed as well. I wonder if
matz would prefer documentation patches be submitted for
braches/matzruby or the new yarv-based trunk. Then there is the
question of making sure useful documentation applied to 1_8 that is
still relevant to 1_9/2.0 is also applied there. Anyone know? If not,
I'll take the question to the ruby-doc list. Thanks.