From: James Britt <james.britt@...>
Date: 2006-09-26T04:28:10+09:00
Subject: Re: undefined method `recvfrom_nonblock'

Michael P. Soulier wrote:
> On 25/09/06 Austin Ziegler said:
> 
> 
>>There aren't. I think you're missing out on several factors and reacting 
>>badly.
>>
>>1.  ruby-doc.org is not maintained by the core Ruby website folks.
>>James Britt, the maintainer of ruby-doc.org, does so on his time. The
>>core Ruby website is and always has been ruby-lang.org and can be
>>considered more up-to-date than most other websites about Ruby with
>>respect to releases. ruby-doc.org is good, but it is an independent
>>but related project, not part of the main website.
>>
>>2. There was only one *release* of Ruby 1.8.4. There wasn't even a
>>security patch (1.8.4.z) released. After release, there are dated
>>stable snapshots available. It is possible to get a Ruby 1.8.5 that
>>has further fixes available with recent changes as of right now. But
>>if you download Ruby 1.8.5, you're getting ONLY what was released
>>there.
> 
> 
> Core site or not,
> 
> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/documentation/
> 
> points to ruby-doc as it's standard and core library references. They
> shouldn't do that if they're not vouching for their authenticity.
> 
> I downloaded the 1.8.4 tarball long after it was considered the stable
> release, AFAIK. If there was only one release, then I got it. The links to the
> 1.8.4 docs should lead one to docs on 1.8.4, yes?

Sure.  Unless the guy running the site is busy and forgets to update the 
text  for some links.

Life happens.

The core and stdlib links on ruby-doc should always be pointing to the 
current docs for the current release.  The text describing those links 
should correctly indicate what the release happens to be.  They were 
wrong, I've fixed them, and the world keeps turning.

...

> 
> How can I help this situation? I guess I'll start by talking to the owners of
> ruby-doc, and seeing if I can help.

Join the ruby-doc mailing list:

http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/community/mailing-lists/



-- 
James Britt

"Programs must be written for people to read, and only incidentally
  for machines to execute."
   - H. Abelson and G. Sussman
   (in "The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs)