From: Trans Date: 2008-09-28T08:37:51+09:00 Subject: Re: darkfish-rdoc 1.1.5 On Sep 27, 4:28 pm, Eric Hodel wrote: > 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. In that case you may as well toss it. No one will maintain it. T.