# Ruby's RDocs **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [June 27, 2010, 9:28am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-rdocs/190766 "2010-06-27T09:28:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/eb8c5e/32.png) [@tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tcsnide)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 9:28am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-rdocs/190766/1 "2010-06-27T09:28:39Z")
Thanks to Josh C. I finally went and started the documentation project I’ve been planning to do since '09. [http://trans.github.com/ruby/core/](http://trans.github.com/ruby/core/) The standard library is nearly ready too, and I will need to tie them together some way. But I think it’s a good start. I becomes clear in doing this just how much the libs, mainly the standard libs, could use improvement. So I will designate my branch as purely a fork for doing doc updates, and charge myself with improving them as time permits. ---
**Author:** ![tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/eb8c5e/32.png) [@tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tcsnide)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-rdocs/190766/2 "2010-06-27T15:36:48Z")
On Jun 27, 2010, at 2:27 AM, Intransition wrote: > purely a fork for doing doc updates, and charge myself with improving > them as time permits. Do you intend to push these changes upstream so that they eventually show up on [ruby-doc.org](http://ruby-doc.org)? cr ---
**Author:** ![tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/eb8c5e/32.png) [@tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tcsnide)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 4:20pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-rdocs/190766/3 "2010-06-27T16:20:08Z")
On Jun 27, 9:36 am, Chuck R. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > I becomes clear in doing this just how much the libs, mainly the > > standard libs, could use improvement. So I will designate my branch as > > purely a fork for doing doc updates, and charge myself with improving > > them as time permits. > > Do you intend to push these changes upstream so that they eventually show up on [ruby-doc.org](http://ruby-doc.org)? I will submit the changes for upstream inclusion; and I will do so in small chunks so they are easier to follow. Their acceptance is out of my hands however, but I certainly hope they will be accepted --who doesn’t want better documentation? And if they aren’t, well then, what would be the point? ---
**Author:** ![tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/eb8c5e/32.png) [@tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tcsnide)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 5:00pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-rdocs/190766/4 "2010-06-27T17:00:32Z")
On 27 June 2010 17:19, Intransition [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I will submit the changes for upstream inclusion; and I will do so in > small chunks so they are easier to follow. Their acceptance is out of > my hands however, but I certainly hope they will be accepted --who > doesn’t want better documentation? And if they aren’t, well then, what > would be the point? This is certainly a very good idea. It would clearly be handy on [ruby-doc.org](http://ruby-doc.org) ---
**Author:** ![tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/t/eb8c5e/32.png) [@tcsnide](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/tcsnide)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2010, 5:06pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-rdocs/190766/5 "2010-06-27T17:06:58Z")
On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:19 AM, Intransition [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > The standard library is nearly ready too, and I will need to tie them > > > I will submit the changes for upstream inclusion; and I will do so in > > > small chunks so they are easier to follow. Their acceptance is out of > > > my hands however, but I certainly hope they will be accepted --who > > > doesn’t want better documentation? And if they aren’t, well then, what > > > would be the point? I think you have a good chance, it seems stdlib docs are already on the radar [http://www.ruby-doc.org/stdlib/status.html](http://www.ruby-doc.org/stdlib/status.html) There are lots of useful hidden libs in there. I just recently discovered Pathname, for example, and wondered how I had never seen it before.