Rewriting the documenter intro

Dear documenters,

I browsed ruby-doc.org, learnt some things, and wanted to
give back  
to the community.

These out-of-date guidelines could use some love.
http://www.ruby-doc.org/documentation-guidelines.html

So, I began typing a changed document.
http:/
/docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcm4sxp6_0ff35wc

My question now is: Are the svn diff notes too bland, or do
they need  
the sharpness that the previous CVS notes had? I.e. are
SVN's default  
settings smart enough?

Why am doing it? I found that I wanted to add a couple of
lines of  
general explanation to racc and racc/parser, which are...  
undescribed. So, all this fiddling is about getting the
following  
note into the docs.

------
racc is the runtime module for parsers generated by [Racc
(Ruby yACC)] 
(http://i.love
ruby.net/en/projects/racc/), which is a LALR(1) parser 

generator for Ruby.

(The license note about distributing the code for the racc
module is  
obsolete by Ruby 1.8, which includes that code in the
standard library.)
------

But, I'll follow the normal channels to get this little note
into the  
source code.

best regards,
    and thanks for the Great Job you do,
    Olle Jonsson, Copenhagen

Olle Jonsson wrote:
> Dear documenters,
> 
> I browsed ruby-doc.org, learnt some things, and wanted
to give back to 
> the community.
> 
> These out-of-date guidelines could use some love.
> http://www.ruby-doc.org/documentation-guidelines.html
> 
> So, I began typing a changed document.
> http:/
/docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcm4sxp6_0ff35wc
> 
> My question now is: Are the svn diff notes too bland,
or do they need 
> the sharpness that the previous CVS notes had? I.e. are
SVN's default 
> settings smart enough?

I've just now gotten time to take  look at this.  The
original version 
is a Google docs file as well, so I'm going to add you the
list of editors.


James

Olle Jonsson wrote:
> Dear documenters,
> 
> I browsed ruby-doc.org, learnt some things, and wanted
to give back to 
> the community.
> 
> These out-of-date guidelines could use some love.
> http://www.ruby-doc.org/documentation-guidelines.html
> 
> So, I began typing a changed document.
> http:/
/docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcm4sxp6_0ff35wc
> 
> My question now is: Are the svn diff notes too bland,
or do they need 
> the sharpness that the previous CVS notes had? I.e. are
SVN's default 
> settings smart enough?

I've just now gotten time to take  look at this.  The
original version 
is a Google docs file as well, so I'm going to add you the
list of editors.


James

Olle Jonsson wrote:
> Dear documenters,
> 
> I browsed ruby-doc.org, learnt some things, and wanted
to give back to 
> the community.
> 
> These out-of-date guidelines could use some love.
> http://www.ruby-doc.org/documentation-guidelines.html
> 
> So, I began typing a changed document.
> http:/
/docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcm4sxp6_0ff35wc
> 
I've updated the original, and republished it on
ruby-doc.org

Thanks for much for these edits.



James

Olle Jonsson wrote:
> Dear documenters,
> 
> I browsed ruby-doc.org, learnt some things, and wanted
to give back to 
> the community.
> 
> These out-of-date guidelines could use some love.
> http://www.ruby-doc.org/documentation-guidelines.html
> 
> So, I began typing a changed document.
> http:/
/docs.google.com/Doc?id=dcm4sxp6_0ff35wc
> 
I've updated the original, and republished it on
ruby-doc.org

Thanks for much for these edits.



James