< :前の番号
^ :番号順リスト
> :次の番号
P :前の記事
N :次の記事(スレッド移動)
|<:スレッドの先頭
>|:次のスレッド
^ :返事先
_:自分への返事
>:同じ返事先を持つ記事(前)
<:同じ返事先を持つ記事(後)
---:分割してスレッド表示、再表示
| :分割して(縦)スレッド表示、再表示
~ :スレッドのフレーム消去
.:インデックス
..:インデックスのインデックス
On Sep 18, 2012, at 11:00 AM, Perry Smith wrote:
> Hi
>=20
> I posted this question to stackoverflow:
>=20
> =
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12438097/warnings-doing-gem-rdoc-railti=
es-ri
>=20
> In brief, the command
>=20
> gem rdoc railties --ri --overwrite
>=20
> produces lots of warnings and no ri output is generated. I'm trying =
to understand if the problem is with my set up, railties, or rubygems.
>=20
> I apologize if this is not appropriate for this list. I opted to send =
it because it seems pervasive without a solution (that I can find).
Thank you to Eric for responding. The question was very poorly phrased =
it turns out. I incorrectly assumed the warnings was the reason "gem =
rdoc railties" was not producing documentation. It turns out it is in =
the gem specification.
The reason for this email is to propose a change to the Deprecation =
system. It needs to be opt-ed in by an environment variable. It is =
just a bunch of chatter that no one pays attention to. In this example, =
it lead to an incorrect assumption.
If I'm developing on top of Rails (for example), then I am a user of =
rails -- not a developer. Indeed, if someone is using my application, =
then they are a user -- not a developer. The warnings only confuse the =
users. They are nice for developers but at this point there are more =
users than developers. The developers should need to opt-in to get the =
deprecation warnings. Currently, the user's can't even opt-out.
Perry