On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Daniel Schierbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Okay, i guess that's as good as it can get then -- there will be links > to that from rubyonrails.org, hopefully?
Absolutely, the only reason they're not there now is that the guides document 2.2, not 2.1 and that's likely to be just as confusing as the current situation. > Cheers, > Daniel > > On Oct 31, 3:37 pm, "Michael Koziarski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 3:03 PM, Daniel Schierbeck >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > I think the guides are great, but they are completely separate from >> > the other documentation. >> >> > I've recently helped a friend get started with Ruby and Rails, and my >> > observations of his experiences as a newcomer enticed me to begin this >> > thread. >> >> > Looking at the list of Rails tutorials at <http://rubyonrails.org/ >> > docs>, only Rails 1.2 is covered. Many of the tutorials show >> > deprecated API's. Furthermore, these are all external tutorials, and >> > neither provide in-depth explanations that can match the quality of >> > e.g. Django. >> >> This page will link to the guides once 2.2 is released. That's what >> the guides were written to replace. We can't change that link now as >> it references stuff which isn't in a shipping release. >> >> > The content's there -- why not attempt to edit it together? It doesn't >> > have to be right now, and I'm not saying that you guys should do it >> > (I'd be more than happy to help if there was agreement on a goal,) but >> > we really need a canonical, high-quality starting point for people >> > learning Rails. >> >> What you're talking about is a 'getting started with rails' guide >> which covers the basics and links off to other guides / rdoc for more >> detail: >> >> http://guides.rails.info/getting_started_with_rails.html >> >> Suggestions for improvement can be added in the lighthouse ticket, but >> ideally that will be the one place where new programmers can start, >> and it will point them to everything else they need to know. >> >> >> >> >> >> > Cheers, >> > Daniel >> >> > On Oct 30, 9:30 pm, "Jeremy McAnally" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> > wrote: >> >> Such ashttp://guides.rails.info? That's all part of the docrails stuff. >> >> >> Anything other than contributing to those would be completely >> >> redundant, in my opinion. :P >> >> >> --Jeremy >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Daniel Schierbeck >> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> > I'm thinking about essentially having an online manual, complete with >> >> > instructions on how to install Rails, how to get started, and of >> >> > course guides to the different aspects of Rails. >> >> >> > I'm not suggesting that we take a radically different direction; just >> >> > that some of the existing, high-quality content would benefit from >> >> > being edited into a coherent manual, that can be read from start to >> >> > finish. >> >> >> > Furthermore, the reference documentation (rdoc) would benefit from >> >> > having links to the relevant chapters of such a manual. >> >> >> > Cheers, >> >> > Daniel >> >> >> > On Oct 30, 1:01 pm, "Michael Koziarski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:52 PM, Daniel Schierbeck >> >> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi everybody >> >> >> >> > The recent surge in documentation effort, spurred mainly by the Rails >> >> >> > Guides project, has caused the quality of Rails documentation to >> >> >> > improve greatly -- at least that's my humble opinion. >> >> >> >> > There still is a big hole in the online docs for Rails, though -- a >> >> >> > real, official, in-depth manual, akin to the ones offered by PHP and >> >> >> > Django. >> >> >> >> > The guides provide a great foundation for such a manual, essentially >> >> >> > being a chapter each (although editing and streamlining would be >> >> >> > necessary.) >> >> >> >> > Is there a strategy on this area? Should there be? >> >> >> >> The guides as a whole are indeed intended to be the 'in depth' >> >> >> introduction and tutorial for their areas of rails. With the rdoc >> >> >> providing the detailed per class/method documentation. These two >> >> >> needs are completely different and I think the improvement in both >> >> >> these areas is enormous. They'll both, hopefully, continue to improve >> >> >> as we go along. >> >> >> >> What, beyond guides and rdoc, would a central manual be? >> >> >> >> Both the guides and the rdoc live alongside the source, and are >> >> >> maintained by the docrails guys: >> >> >> >>http://github.com/lifo/docrails/tree/master >> >> >> >> Any suggestions for improvements or editing should be handled through >> >> >> those channels. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> Koz >> >> >> --http://jeremymcanally.com/http://entp.com/http://omgbloglol.com >> >> >> My >> >> books:http://manning.com/mcanally/http://humblelittlerubybook.com/(FREE!) >> >> -- >> Cheers >> >> Koz > > > -- Cheers Koz --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Core" group. To post to this group, send email to rubyonrails-core@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-core?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
