On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:45 AM, Hugh Sasse <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 1 Apr 2010, James Tucker wrote: > >> >> On 31 Mar 2010, at 21:05, Hugh Sasse wrote: >> > That's clear and readily found. What isn't so clear is what is going on >> > with require, gem versioning, and the deprecation of require_gem. Examples >> > in some books will need to be changed. >> >> I have done a first pass through the first book and fixed many of the broken >> items and loose markup, as well as added updates to reflect recent >> rubygems.org introduction and the gem push command. > > I was still talking about examples from print books that are out > there. Some will be made obsolete by more recent editions, we face > the same upper bounds imposed by availability of people to do this, > but I'm coming from the position that a continual criticism of Ruby > has been the limits on its documentation. Provision of these > corrections seems like it could be a good aspiration, even if we > only make limited progress. >
Sorry to chime in, but is ilogical to assume that we can control an update every book out there. What you're suggesting is that backward compatibility should be maintained because "Programming Ruby", based on Ruby 1.6 is still out there in the hands of someone. It is true that RubyGems documentation site hasn't been updated, but if noone volunteers or provide feedback enough, that is not going to change. Developers are used to peek into the source. To step up as maintainer of a project you need to know what is made of and what are the tools to make it work. That is true for any project out there. -- Luis Lavena AREA 17 - Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but rather when there is nothing more to take away. Antoine de Saint-Exupéry _______________________________________________ Rubygems-developers mailing list http://rubyforge.org/projects/rubygems [email protected] http://rubyforge.org/mailman/listinfo/rubygems-developers
