From: Justin Collins <justincollins@...>
Date: 2011-06-17T06:55:37+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby 1.9.3 documentation challenge

Markus Fischer wrote:
> - Is there an encouragement to document private methods? If not it would
> be nice if they could be omitted from the coverage. Otherwise just so we
> know what the goal is.
>   

I can't speak for Eric, but I think part of documenting is marking the 
code which does not need documenting with :nodoc:

> - While I was looking at addrinfo_initialize() in ext/socket/raddrinfo.c
> and then looked at
> http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-1.9/classes/Addrinfo.html#M001733 , I
> noticed that at the HTML page there is a typo, it says "The instnace
> contains..." but the docs in the code are right. Looking with git blame
> at the code docs it said last change was in 2009-11-04 12:02:37 . That's
> now more than two years and I'm wondering if looking at
> http://www.ruby-doc.org/core-1.9/ will give generally a wrong impression
> because the docs aren't up to date? Is there some automatic generation?


Ever since 1.9 came out, I've felt like ruby-doc.org has fallen behind. 
rdoc.info has been my go-to site for documentation: 
http://rdoc.info/stdlib/socket/1.9.2/Addrinfo:initialize


-Justin