You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by rb...@covalent.net on 2000/07/28 18:28:45 UTC
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
On 28 Jul 2000 sascha@locus.apache.org wrote:
> sascha 00/07/28 09:22:33
>
> Modified: src Makefile.in
> Log:
> Don't bark at developers which are too lazy to pull down the htdocs
> module. ;-)
I really dislike this change. This is part of what we were talking about
when the idea of separating the docs from the code was originally
presented. If you are too lazy to bring down the docs, then you are
probably too lazy to update the docs too. At that point, you should be
reminded everytime you try to install that you need to grab the docs tree.
Can we please consider removing this most recent change.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by Tony Finch <do...@dotat.at>.
rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
>I really dislike this change. This is part of what we were talking about
>when the idea of separating the docs from the code was originally
>presented. If you are too lazy to bring down the docs, then you are
>probably too lazy to update the docs too. At that point, you should be
>reminded everytime you try to install that you need to grab the docs tree.
>
>Can we please consider removing this most recent change.
+1
Tony.
--
f.a.n.finch fanf@covalent.net dot@dotat.at
448 nutritious nectar nodules
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Okey, it's done. Here are the new names:
checkout -P apache-1.3
checkout -P apache-1.3-sourceonly
checkout -P apache-2.0
checkout -P apache-2.0-sourceonly
apache-1.3 and apache-2.0 will include the htdocs/ subtree.
The -sourceonly ones don't. The '-P' is necessary in order
to prune the empty Atticated htdocs/ subtree so it won't
conflict with the one being included from the other module.
Note that these are the way they used to be; they do NOT
include the API documentation now in the http-docs-* modules.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/>
"Apache Server Unleashed" <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
James Sutherland wrote:
>
> How easy would it be to keep a doc-free version available,
> though? (For automated tests etc., it would be a little quicker
> to check out the code only.)
Not difficult; just another module name that didn't include
Joe's magic.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/>
"Apache Server Unleashed" <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk>.
On 9 Aug 2000, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
> > On 9 Aug 2000, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> >
> > > James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > +1
> > > >
> > > > How easy would it be to keep a doc-free version available, though? (For
> > > > automated tests etc., it would be a little quicker to check out the code
> > > > only.)
> > >
> > > I'm sure you already thought of this, but just in case:
> > >
> > > 1) Docs are required for "make install" to work.
> >
> > Hrmph. Unless anyone can suggest any regression tests for the
> > documentation files - actually, I can think of a few, but they'd all fail
> > every .html file ATM - I don't want to install them anyway...
>
> I certainly not arguing with you about what your regression tests
> might/should/could/would do... My original comment about docs being
> needed for "make install" to work was that, for my tests, it isn't
> that I test the doc files; it is that I wish to run the result of
> "make install" in order to ensure that "make install" works and that
> any weirdness done by libtool when it installs dsos went fine.
Ah, I see... I wasn't thinking in terms of regression testing the install
scripts yet. Right now, I'm stuck with regression testing 150k lines of 15
year old Pascal, ported from DOS to Windows, then from Windows into an NT
based WWW app using CGI. Eurgh....
Ultimately, I'd want to test the install scripts as well, which would
require having the docs available; that's off in the distant future,
though.
Speaking of automated testing, has anyone looked at making the docs etc.
pass the Validator tests? Those, coupled with some link-checking (maybe a
spell checker too?) would be the obvious tests to run...
> Have fun...
Once I'm done with the Pascal, pulling my fingernails would be fun :)
James.
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@bellsouth.net>.
James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> On 9 Aug 2000, Jeff Trawick wrote:
>
> > James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
> >
> > >
> > > +1
> > >
> > > How easy would it be to keep a doc-free version available, though? (For
> > > automated tests etc., it would be a little quicker to check out the code
> > > only.)
> >
> > I'm sure you already thought of this, but just in case:
> >
> > 1) Docs are required for "make install" to work.
>
> Hrmph. Unless anyone can suggest any regression tests for the
> documentation files - actually, I can think of a few, but they'd all fail
> every .html file ATM - I don't want to install them anyway...
I certainly not arguing with you about what your regression tests
might/should/could/would do... My original comment about docs being
needed for "make install" to work was that, for my tests, it isn't
that I test the doc files; it is that I wish to run the result of
"make install" in order to ensure that "make install" works and that
any weirdness done by libtool when it installs dsos went fine.
Have fun...
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@ibm.net | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk>.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> James Sutherland wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> > >
> > > We're dealing with that by having negociable variants in the
> > > single module.
> >
> > That sounds good - except: who is going to keep them all in sync?
> > Presumably the English variants will remain the authoritative
> > version, and other translations are then updated from that by
> > their maintainers?
>
> Correct.
Nice and simple, then - it might be nicer if the English docs were done by
a doc-person, based on notes from the person making the code changes,
though?
> > BTW: Is anyone working on the devsite? Some of the items on
> > it are growing cobwebs...
>
> Yes, actually, I am a bit. Nothing ready to commit yet, though..
> Soon. (Hopefully.)
Right - are you doing actual content, though, or fixing the HTML oddities?
If the former, mind if I take a look at the latter?
James.
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
James Sutherland wrote:
>
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> >
> > We're dealing with that by having negociable variants in the
> > single module.
>
> That sounds good - except: who is going to keep them all in sync?
> Presumably the English variants will remain the authoritative
> version, and other translations are then updated from that by
> their maintainers?
Correct.
> BTW: Is anyone working on the devsite? Some of the items on
> it are growing cobwebs...
Yes, actually, I am a bit. Nothing ready to commit yet, though..
Soon. (Hopefully.)
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/>
"Apache Server Unleashed" <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk>.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> James Sutherland wrote:
> >
> > For that matter, it may be desirable to make other docs modules
> > available in other languages?
>
> We're dealing with that by having negociable variants in the
> single module.
That sounds good - except: who is going to keep them all in sync?
Presumably the English variants will remain the authoritative version, and
other translations are then updated from that by their maintainers?
BTW: Is anyone working on the devsite? Some of the items on it are growing
cobwebs...
James.
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
James Sutherland wrote:
>
> For that matter, it may be desirable to make other docs modules
> available in other languages?
We're dealing with that by having negociable variants in the
single module.
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/>
"Apache Server Unleashed" <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, James Sutherland wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> > It doesn't matter if the docs are wrong, they are required.
>
> "They are required" - i.e. "make install" breaks without them. So what? I
> don't want/need the docs in this case.
That is irrelevant. We aren't developing for one person. In general, the
docs are required.
> > They also aren't installed if you already have an htdocs directory.
> > What we are discussing here, is developers getting code without docs.
>
> Developers? I'm talking about an automated build process - I've seen some
> smart code, but none that can RTFM yet :)
We are not talking about an automated build process, and never were. We
are looking at how we package the code. We package the code for one of
two cases, developers who want access, and users. In all cases, docs are
required.
> > That is unacceptable. That gives the definite impression that docs
> > aren't important for developers to worry about.
>
> They are completely irrelevant when the "developer" in question is a
> collection of non-English speaking Perl scripts. That's the point.
That isn't a developer. That is a test script. If this is what you are
working for, then your automated scripts could just checkout the src
directory, and ignore everything in the top-level directory.
> For that matter, it may be desirable to make other docs modules available
> in other languages?
That is without a doubt important, but the docs are still important. What
language the docs are in is irrelevant. It should not be possible to
download a distribution of code without docs of some form.
> > Docs must always go with code.
>
> Why? Docs are no use in some cases: they are simply overhead.
You don't actually want a full distribution, so you shouldn't be using a
mechanism designed to deliver one. If you want to grab just the code and
build environment, then your scripts can and should do that.
> Why? There are cases where the docs would simply waste space and
> bandwidth.
None of the cases we are talking about.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk>.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> > > 1) Docs are required for "make install" to work.
> >
> > Hrmph. Unless anyone can suggest any regression tests for the
> > documentation files - actually, I can think of a few, but they'd all fail
> > every .html file ATM - I don't want to install them anyway...
>
> It doesn't matter if the docs are wrong, they are required.
"They are required" - i.e. "make install" breaks without them. So what? I
don't want/need the docs in this case.
> They also aren't installed if you already have an htdocs directory.
> What we are discussing here, is developers getting code without docs.
Developers? I'm talking about an automated build process - I've seen some
smart code, but none that can RTFM yet :)
> That is unacceptable. That gives the definite impression that docs
> aren't important for developers to worry about.
They are completely irrelevant when the "developer" in question is a
collection of non-English speaking Perl scripts. That's the point.
For that matter, it may be desirable to make other docs modules available
in other languages?
> Docs must always go with code.
Why? Docs are no use in some cases: they are simply overhead.
> > > 2) If you're doing "cvs update" in your automation, surely there
> > > isn't much overhead to update the docs too?
> >
> > Not MUCH overhead, no; the question is, would it be easier to retain the
> > existing functionality, or to add in this overhead again?
>
> As Ken said, it is a simple one line change to add in the overhead. This
> needs to be done anyway, because that allows us to easily tar the docs
> with the code, and it keeps people from having to do two checkouts
> whenever they check out the apache-2.0 tree. To keep the existing
> functionality, we would also need to add another CVS module that didn't
> have the docs. That would be a mistake IMHO.
Why? There are cases where the docs would simply waste space and
bandwidth.
James.
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
> > > How easy would it be to keep a doc-free version available, though? (For
> > > automated tests etc., it would be a little quicker to check out the code
> > > only.)
> >
> > I'm sure you already thought of this, but just in case:
> >
> > 1) Docs are required for "make install" to work.
>
> Hrmph. Unless anyone can suggest any regression tests for the
> documentation files - actually, I can think of a few, but they'd all fail
> every .html file ATM - I don't want to install them anyway...
It doesn't matter if the docs are wrong, they are required. They also
aren't installed if you already have an htdocs directory. What we are
discussing here, is developers getting code without docs. That is
unacceptable. That gives the definite impression that docs aren't
important for developers to worry about. Docs must always go with code.
> > 2) If you're doing "cvs update" in your automation, surely there
> > isn't much overhead to update the docs too?
>
> Not MUCH overhead, no; the question is, would it be easier to retain the
> existing functionality, or to add in this overhead again?
As Ken said, it is a simple one line change to add in the overhead. This
needs to be done anyway, because that allows us to easily tar the docs
with the code, and it keeps people from having to do two checkouts
whenever they check out the apache-2.0 tree. To keep the existing
functionality, we would also need to add another CVS module that didn't
have the docs. That would be a mistake IMHO.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk>.
On 9 Aug 2000, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
> >
> > +1
> >
> > How easy would it be to keep a doc-free version available, though? (For
> > automated tests etc., it would be a little quicker to check out the code
> > only.)
>
> I'm sure you already thought of this, but just in case:
>
> 1) Docs are required for "make install" to work.
Hrmph. Unless anyone can suggest any regression tests for the
documentation files - actually, I can think of a few, but they'd all fail
every .html file ATM - I don't want to install them anyway...
> 2) If you're doing "cvs update" in your automation, surely there
> isn't much overhead to update the docs too?
Not MUCH overhead, no; the question is, would it be easier to retain the
existing functionality, or to add in this overhead again?
James.
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by Jeff Trawick <tr...@bellsouth.net>.
James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk> writes:
>
> +1
>
> How easy would it be to keep a doc-free version available, though? (For
> automated tests etc., it would be a little quicker to check out the code
> only.)
I'm sure you already thought of this, but just in case:
1) Docs are required for "make install" to work.
2) If you're doing "cvs update" in your automation, surely there
isn't much overhead to update the docs too?
--
Jeff Trawick | trawick@ibm.net | PGP public key at web site:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Park/9289/
Born in Roswell... married an alien...
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by James Sutherland <ja...@cam.ac.uk>.
On Wed, 9 Aug 2000, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Joe Orton wrote:
> >
> > I think this problem could be solved by adding an "&" module to the
> > CVSROOT/modules file: you'd need to add lines like:
> >
> > apache-2-htdocs -d htdocs httpd-docs-2.0
> > apache-2.0 apache-2.0 &apache-2-htdocs
> >
> > Then the httpd-docs-2.0 module would automatically get checked
> > out into an htdocs subdirectory when you check out apache-2.0.
>
> This looks like an excellent idea. Any objections from
> anyone before I do it?
+1
How easy would it be to keep a doc-free version available, though? (For
automated tests etc., it would be a little quicker to check out the code
only.)
James.
RE: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@lnd.com>.
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:Ken.Coar@Golux.Com]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2000 9:17 AM
>
> Joe Orton wrote:
> >
> > I think this problem could be solved by adding an "&" module to the
> > CVSROOT/modules file: you'd need to add lines like:
> >
> > apache-2-htdocs -d htdocs httpd-docs-2.0
> > apache-2.0 apache-2.0 &apache-2-htdocs
> >
> > Then the httpd-docs-2.0 module would automatically get checked
> > out into an htdocs subdirectory when you check out apache-2.0.
>
> This looks like an excellent idea. Any objections from
> anyone before I do it?
give it a shot :)
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Joe Orton wrote:
>
> I think this problem could be solved by adding an "&" module to the
> CVSROOT/modules file: you'd need to add lines like:
>
> apache-2-htdocs -d htdocs httpd-docs-2.0
> apache-2.0 apache-2.0 &apache-2-htdocs
>
> Then the httpd-docs-2.0 module would automatically get checked
> out into an htdocs subdirectory when you check out apache-2.0.
This looks like an excellent idea. Any objections from
anyone before I do it?
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/>
"Apache Server Unleashed" <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Joe Orton wrote:
>
> I think this problem could be solved by adding an "&" module to the
> CVSROOT/modules file: you'd need to add lines like:
Unfortunately, after working under this for a while it appears
to be suboptimal. It would work great if the apache-*/htdocs
directory had never been used, but since it has files in its
Attic, checkout and update of existing working directories are
exhibiting somewhat funky behaviour: conflicts, 'in the way'
errors, spurious checkouts..
I think I'm going to have to back this change out, or at least
call the combined module something else and suggest that it only
be used for initial checkouts (such as for making the 6-hour
tarballs). :-(
--
#ken P-)}
Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/>
"Apache Server Unleashed" <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by Joe Orton <jo...@orton.demon.co.uk>.
I think this problem could be solved by adding an "&" module to the
CVSROOT/modules file: you'd need to add lines like:
apache-2-htdocs -d htdocs httpd-docs-2.0
apache-2.0 apache-2.0 &apache-2-htdocs
Then the httpd-docs-2.0 module would automatically get checked out into
an htdocs subdirectory when you check out apache-2.0.
(If you already have a tree checked-out you'll still have to check
htdocs out manually of course.)
Regards,
joe
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by rb...@covalent.net.
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000, Sascha Schumann wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
>
> > On 28 Jul 2000 sascha@locus.apache.org wrote:
> >
> > I really dislike this change. This is part of what we were talking about
> > when the idea of separating the docs from the code was originally
> > presented. If you are too lazy to bring down the docs, then you are
> > probably too lazy to update the docs too. At that point, you should be
> > reminded everytime you try to install that you need to grab the docs tree.
>
> Some people make changes which require changing the docs.
> Some people do not. Or did I miss anything?
I think that is a cop-out. Most people will at some point or another make
a change that requires a doc change. The reason for splitting the docs
out into their own repository, is so that more people can help fix them,
not so that some programmers can ignore them. This was the biggest
argument against splitting them out in fact.
Ryan
_______________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Bloom rbb@apache.org
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: cvs commit: apache-2.0/src Makefile.in
Posted by Sascha Schumann <sa...@schumann.cx>.
On Fri, 28 Jul 2000 rbb@covalent.net wrote:
> On 28 Jul 2000 sascha@locus.apache.org wrote:
>
> > sascha 00/07/28 09:22:33
> >
> > Modified: src Makefile.in
> > Log:
> > Don't bark at developers which are too lazy to pull down the htdocs
> > module. ;-)
>
> I really dislike this change. This is part of what we were talking about
> when the idea of separating the docs from the code was originally
> presented. If you are too lazy to bring down the docs, then you are
> probably too lazy to update the docs too. At that point, you should be
> reminded everytime you try to install that you need to grab the docs tree.
Some people make changes which require changing the docs.
Some people do not. Or did I miss anything?
- Sascha