From: Eric Hodel Date: 2008-09-28T05:28:32+09:00 Subject: Re: darkfish-rdoc 1.1.5 On Sep 27, 2008, at 12:47, Trans wrote: > On Sep 27, 3:08 pm, "Gregory Brown" wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 8:12 PM, Segment 7 >> wrote: >>> On Sep 26, 2008, at 16:52, Aria Stewart wrote: >> >>>>> I you do replace it, please keep the old one available under a >>>>> different name. >> >>>> Pluggable, please! >> >>> I would package the old one as a gem. >> >> Do it! > > Why another gem? What's wrong with with having a few choices built-in? Choice for users means maintenance burden for maintainers. I would like RDoc to get smaller, not bigger. By moving the current HTML generator out of RDoc I can push the support burden to people who want to live in the past. (The HTML generator could use a giant refactoring, but that would break backwards compatibility, and there's still the XML generator to maintain. Since Darkfish sits on top of the XML generator there is less code, less maintenance and a superior template to serve as an example for others.) If 10% of users use a feature I really want to remove it so the people who find it important can maintain it. Everyone can get better support this way, as they are working on what they are passionate about.