On Monday, January 5, 2004, 2:29:57 AM, Dave wrote:

> Folks:

> All the RDoc documentation for the core interpreter is now complete.

Congratulations.

> [...]

> So, what are the merits of each approach? If we were to go with (2),
> should we hook into CVS to make sure the documentation on ruby-lang is
> always updated when someone checks in?

My vote would be to have the documentation pre-generated in the CVS,
just for the sake of convenience.  (It's better to tell a newbie to
look something up in 'ri' _knowing_ that they have the documentation
installed.)

I don't see a great need to hook into CVS - documentation could be
generated once a day and checked in, with CVS ignoring it if nothing's
changed.  If there's a clever way to hook it, that's good, but it
shouldn't put a large overhead on every commit.

I support a make target for building documentation as well, so
interested people can perform the task when they wish.

Finally, when a user installs Ruby, they should be able to choose
site-wide or user ri installation.  Perhaps this can be inferred from
the $prefix?

Gavin