Apparently, that includes whatever plans may have once existed to post
anything to the page referenced by all the deprecation warnings in Rails
1.2.
“See http://www.rubyonrails.org/deprecation for details.”
Jon G. wrote:
Apparently, that includes whatever plans may have once existed to post
anything to the page referenced by all the deprecation warnings in Rails
1.2.“See Ruby on Rails — A web-app framework that includes everything needed to create database-backed web applications according to the Model-View-Controller (MVC) pattern. for details.”
Heh. Maybe the page has been depreciated!
–
Chris M.
Web D.
Chris M. wrote:
Jon G. wrote:
Apparently, that includes whatever plans may have once existed to post
anything to the page referenced by all the deprecation warnings in Rails
1.2.“See Ruby on Rails — A web-app framework that includes everything needed to create database-backed web applications according to the Model-View-Controller (MVC) pattern. for details.”
Heh. Maybe the page has been depreciated!
Heh… can’t lose any more value… it’s already worthless (i.e.
“deprecate” not “depreciate”). 
What that page really needs is the “under construction” image… ala
'96. 
Nice to see rails folks committing one of the cardinal sins of
the web.
b
unknown wrote:
Maybe a little animated gif with a hammer hitting an “Under
construction”
sign would finish the page off nicely.
On a related note, I’ve been wondering if the stuff at
“http://api.rubyonrails.org/” is up to date with rails 1.2? There
doesn’t seem to be any version info on the page to tell you what you’re
looking at. I haven’t noticed any new stuff that wasn’t there a couple
months ago.
jp
Jeff P. wrote:
jp
It’s always current with the latest release.
The date in the top right changes as new versions come out.
An actual version number in the initial README would be nice though,
then people wouldn’t have to track down the release date.
–
Chris M.
Web D.
Maybe a little animated gif with a hammer hitting an “Under
construction”
sign would finish the page off nicely.
Ben M. wrote:
Heh… can’t lose any more value… it’s already worthless (i.e.
“deprecate” not “depreciate”).
DOH! At least it still applies though. 
–
Chris M.
Web D.