Eric Hodel wrote: > On Mar 19, 2009, at 19:00, James Britt wrote: >> Eric Hodel wrote: >>> On Mar 18, 2009, at 15:31, James Britt wrote: >>>> I'm running ruby 1.8.6 (2009-03-10 patchlevel 362) [i686-linux] and >>>> trying to rdoc the current 1.9 source. >>> Is there a reason you aren't using the rdoc that ships with 1.9 >>> (2.2.2) or the latest RDoc (2.4.1)? >> >> I'm running Ruby 1.8.6 on ruby-doc.org, but want to serve up the rdoc >> for the 1.9 source. I also have templates that are not designed for >> RDoc (2.4.1) (they do not use erb). >> >> At some point I'll convert them, but I'd rather that be a little later >> than sooner. > > I don't think you'll find a better time. That's often the case. ;) > > The RDoc 1 code is rather difficult to fix, it's a bit slower and quite > the memory hog compared to 2.4. > > On my machine RDoc 2.3 took over 2G to generate HTML for 1.9 while RDoc > 2.4 takes under 200M. For the RDoc source itself, RDoc 2.4 is about 10% > faster than 2.3. > > If you only want to move up to 2.3, it's easy to switch the templates > over to ERb, the instructions are in ri RDoc::TemplatePage. > I'll look at that. In the long run it's what needs to happen anyways. > 2.4 dispenses with the nested hash structure that the HTML generator > used (which caused the high memory consumption) so switching is a more > involved process. I'm willing to give you a hand with that, though. Thanks! -- James Britt www.jamesbritt.com - Playing with Better Toys www.ruby-doc.org - Ruby Help & Documentation www.rubystuff.com - The Ruby Store for Ruby Stuff