Skip to content

Conversation

@rafb43
Copy link

@rafb43 rafb43 commented Jun 10, 2013

This could be an initial part of the implementation. I merely followed my way on making it work with the command I use, but it seems adequate to work with the latest version of the main tool.

rafb43 added 4 commits June 7, 2013 18:52
Files:      57

Classes:     6 ( 0 undocumented)
Modules:     8 ( 4 undocumented)
Constants:   9 ( 9 undocumented)
Attributes:  5 ( 5 undocumented)
Methods:    47 (30 undocumented)

Total:      75 (48 undocumented)
 36.00% documented

Elapsed: 4.7s dependency
@strzibny
Copy link
Contributor

+1

We need this to package sdoc for Fedora, where we have RDoc 4.0.0 already.

@strzibny
Copy link
Contributor

Ping, can we merge this and release a new version? Or is there something that blocks it?

@zzak
Copy link
Member

zzak commented Sep 25, 2013

I have been working on an upgrade to sdoc to include rdoc 4 support

https://github.com/zzak/sdoc/tree/rdoc-4

@strzibny
Copy link
Contributor

@zzak Good to know.

@translunar
Copy link

Awesome to hear this is in progress. We're running into an incompatibility between NMatrix and Rails 3.x related to rdoc; NMatrix requires rdoc >= 4.0.1, since NMatrix is written in C++ and rdoc can't read C++ init entry points prior to 4.0.1.

Here's the issue: SciRuby/nmatrix#149

Any sense of a timeline? Thanks so much.

(Incidentally, I love SDoc's output. Would definitely consider using with SciRuby / NMatrix.)

@zzak
Copy link
Member

zzak commented Oct 14, 2013

I will have more time for this after rubyconf, glad to answer any questions you might have!

On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:35 PM, John Woods notifications@github.com wrote:

Awesome to hear this is in progress. We're running into an incompatibility between NMatrix and Rails 3.x related to rdoc; NMatrix requires rdoc >= 4.0.1, since NMatrix is written in C++ and rdoc can't read C++ init entry points prior to 4.0.1.

Here's the issue: SciRuby/nmatrix#149

Any sense of a timeline? Thanks so much.


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@translunar
Copy link

Heh. Okay. Can you change this PR to be ~> 4.0.1 instead of 4.0.0?

@zzak
Copy link
Member

zzak commented Oct 14, 2013

I will update the version on my fork soon!

On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:40 PM, John Woods notifications@github.com wrote:

Heh. Okay. Can you change this PR to be ~> 4.0.1 instead of 4.0.0?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@strzibny
Copy link
Contributor

@zzak Would you like any help on this feature, so we have it sooner? What is actually missing?

@zzak
Copy link
Member

zzak commented Oct 23, 2013

@strzibny If you would like to do a pair session sometime after rubyconf, i'd love some help!

On Oct 23, 2013, at 8:58 AM, strzibny notifications@github.com wrote:

@zzak Would you like any help on this feature, so we have it sooner? What is actually missing?


Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@strzibny
Copy link
Contributor

@zzak I looked on the code today, and with this (https://gist.github.com/strzibny/7136890) little fix, I was able to use sdoc to generate the documentation involving merging doc dirs with sdoc-merge. Since we don't have automated tests, I am not sure whether this is everything that needs to be done. Do you know about corner cases where it doesn't work? I am willing to work further on this.

@MohawkJohn RDoc 4.0 is shipped with Ruby 2.0, so there is need for sdoc to work with RDoc 4.0.0 as well. If supporting RDoc 4.0.1 requires many other not-compatible changes, then I suggest merge and release a version for RDoc 4.0.0 and afterwards work on RDoc 4.0.1.

@translunar
Copy link

I guess I was referring more to the gemspec requirement of "~> 4.0.0". This means it has to be exactly 4.0.0 and not 4.0.1, right? 4.0.1 is a pretty minor revision — just adds support for C++ parsing.

@strzibny
Copy link
Contributor

@MohawkJohn That's why I was confused by your comment, ~> 4.0.0 means starting at 4.0.0 up to version 4.1.0 so it covers 4.0.1 just fine. The ~ operator is introduced to cover more minor versions that should not break api/abi compatibility (since major versions usually do that).

@translunar
Copy link

Oh, great. I'm perfectly happy then. Thanks for your hard work!

@strzibny
Copy link
Contributor

strzibny commented Nov 6, 2013

So, I looked into it again, and tried to make a 0.4.0 release candidate for Fedora. This can help people to test it or use it if they need to.

So, what have I done?

  • Took the latest released version (0.3.20)
  • Applied patches from the rdoc4 branch of zzak's fork
  • Made patches to rename search indexes to lib/rdoc/generator/template/sdoc/search_index.rhtml and lib/rdoc/generator/template/rails/search_index.rhtml
  • Applied my patches from WIP: Add man pages and their sources #49 to add man pages
  • Applied my fix for sdoc --version from Fix: Show sdoc version rather than rdoc version #54
  • Changed the version from 0.4.0 to 0.4.0.rc1

Then I made a build[1] and tried to test it against big projects like Katello and generating Rails api using rake doc:rails. Seems that it works.

I will soon update my review request to include the package to Fedora. After you decide to release 0.4.0, I will update the package accordingly. It would be really nice if @zzak branch could be merged with current @voloko master so everybody can submit relevant pull requests.

[1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6144450

@zzak
Copy link
Member

zzak commented Dec 20, 2013

Also, this is a duplicate of #43 and I will be submitting a new PR soon, could we close this?

@zzak
Copy link
Member

zzak commented Dec 21, 2013

Closing in favor of #56

@zzak zzak closed this Dec 21, 2013
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants