In that case... Here is another patch with your suggestions.

Thanks for taking the time to point out all that..! I'll be sure to keep it
all in mind if I submit something else later.

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Kyle Meyer <kyle@kyleam.com> wrote:

> Matthew MacLean <archenoth@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > Alright, done. Is this acceptable? (Provided that tests don't count
> towards
> > line count, of course)
>
> Thanks.  A few minor comments on the commit message.
>
> > Subject: [PATCH] ob-ruby: Fix double-escaping
> >
> > * lisp/ob-ruby.el: Remove second call to
> >   `org-babel-ruby-table-or-string' in `org-babel-ruby-evaluate'.
>
> Please add the name of the changed function in parentheses after the
> file name rather than putting it in the description body.
>
> > * testing/lisp/test-ob-ruby.el: Add test to verify
> >   `org-babel-execute:ruby' can evaluate Ruby code. (What the
> >   double-escape prevented)
>
> Same here for the test name.  "Add test." for description would do.
>
> > I removed the escaping from `org-babel-ruby-evaluate', because the only
> > place `org-babel-ruby-evaluate' is ever called is in
> > `org-babel-execute:ruby'.
> >
> > In this function, its result either escaped (Where the double escape
> > previously occurred) or passed in as the "scalar-form" of
> > `org-babel-result-cond', which handles the "pp" and "code" parameters.
> > (A place that doesn't need escaping.)
>
> I think the above two paragraphs could be replaced by a link to this ML
> post.
>
> Thanks for working on this.
>
> --
> Kyle
>