[SUMMARY] Text Image (#50)

[daz]

What would that do?

Probably nothing but harm :/
It's a searchable string, isn't it?
Documentation is part of authorship, isn't it?

But author and documenter are often different people.

Hence the separation into $Doc: Name $

Documentation by Yukihiro Matsumoto and Gavin Sinclair.
[...]
Recording the credits in plain text (as above) ensures they are
not lost as CVS tags come and go.

Nothing wrong with that unless someone wants to parse it.
I assume that's the purpose of the $ $ delimeters in header fields.

Are you suggesting that every person who cvs commits a file is
recorded?

Not commits; - significantly contributes to documentation.
Yeah - whatever could I have been thinking?

Cheers,
Gavin

Thanks,

Dazza

 

[James Britt]

Kev Jackson wrote:




Hi Kev,

Documentation of core and library classs is written in the source code
(be it C or Ruby). Thus to contribute, you want to avail yourself of
(anonymous) CVS access (it's easy). Then you edit files, create a
patch, and get it committed. That last step has been the problem in
the past; mea culpa. Suggested process: email the patch to me and/or
James Gray (sorry, James!). Bug me mercilessly if nothing's being
done.

BTW, what is the copyright on submitted docs, and is it made clear to
those submitting documentation?


James Britt

--

http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys

 

[Gavin Sinclair]

BTW, what is the copyright on submitted docs, and is it made clear to
those submitting documentation?

I have no idea what the copyright situation is. Of the few people who
have submitted documentation, none have raised the question of
copyright.

Is there a reason to believe the documentation is treated differently
from the source code of which it's part? If the documentation is "Ruby
Licence", which I expect it is, what implication does that have for
copyright?

Gavin

 

[Gavin Sinclair]

Documentation by Yukihiro Matsumoto and Gavin Sinclair.
[...]
Recording the credits in plain text (as above) ensures they are
not lost as CVS tags come and go.

Nothing wrong with that unless someone wants to parse it.
I assume that's the purpose of the $ $ delimeters in header fields.

The purpose of those delimiters is so CVS treats them specially. The
content between the delimiters is created by CVS.

I.e. you put $Author$ in the source code, and CVS later expands that to
$Author: whoever$. To the best of my knowledge, CVS doesn't recognise
$Doc$, and you can't make it do so.

Cheers,
Gavin

 

[Gavin Kistner]

http://ruby-doc.org/stdlib/

Items listed to the left in italics do not have sufficient docs.

Ahh...I always wondered what was up with the italics. Good to know

 

[Gavin Sinclair]

Ahh...I always wondered what was up with the italics. Good to know

I guess I should put an explanatory note in!

Gavin

 

[James Britt]

I have no idea what the copyright situation is. Of the few people who
have submitted documentation, none have raised the question of
copyright.

Is there a reason to believe the documentation is treated differently
from the source code of which it's part? If the documentation is "Ruby
Licence", which I expect it is, what implication does that have for
copyright?

Could someone sell a book that included the text from the std-lib docs?
Would the book have to be released under Ruby's license (whatever that
means)?


James Britt

--

http://www.ruby-doc.org - The Ruby Documentation Site
http://www.rubyxml.com - News, Articles, and Listings for Ruby & XML
http://www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff
http://www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys

 

[Gavin Sinclair]

Could someone sell a book that included the text from the std-lib docs?
Would the book have to be released under Ruby's license (whatever that
means)?

I don't know. Good way of looking at it.

Gavin

 

[Brian Schröder]

Could someone sell a book that included the text from the std-lib docs?
Would the book have to be released under Ruby's license (whatever that
means)?

The Pickaxe pp. 653-759

brian

 

[James Britt]

Could someone sell a book that included the text from the std-lib docs?
Would the book have to be released under Ruby's license (whatever tha= t
means)?

=20
=20
The Pickaxe pp. 653-759[/QUOTE]


They do not appear to be part of the Ruby source distro.

For example, look at the rdoc for the rss library in 1.8.3. Then look=20
at page 728 of pickaxe 2nd Ed.


James