Re: auth-docs reversion in 2.0 branch

[Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>]

On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, André Malo wrote:

> * Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> > Exactly what is going to happen with auth is an open issue.
>
> *sigh*. And I thought, I've got it now ;-) (2.0 = keep old, 2.1 introduce
> new)

Ok.  Now it appears this is exactly what we are doing.  Andre, do you want
to take charge of reverting the auths docs changes in the 2.0 tag (and
removing the "obsolete" modules in HEAD)?

We'll also need to update the cvs checkout on httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/
to get the 2.0 tag rather than HEAD.  I guess I probably have the rights
to do that.

Joshua.

Re: auth-docs reversion in 2.0 branch

[André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>]

* Joshua Slive wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, André Malo wrote:
>> *sigh*. And I thought, I've got it now ;-) (2.0 = keep old, 2.1 introduce
>> new)
> 
> Ok.  Now it appears this is exactly what we are doing.

I hope I didn't force that anyway, although... hmm ;-)

> Andre, do you want
> to take charge of reverting the auths docs changes in the 2.0 tag (and
> removing the "obsolete" modules in HEAD)?

yep (sorry for the delay, was hardly online yester- and to-day)

nd
-- 
If God intended people to be naked, they would be born that way.
  -- Oscar Wilde

Re: auth-docs reversion in 2.0 branch

[André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>]

* Joshua Slive wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, André Malo wrote:
>> *sigh*. And I thought, I've got it now ;-) (2.0 = keep old, 2.1 introduce
>> new)
> 
> Ok.  Now it appears this is exactly what we are doing.

I hope I didn't force that anyway, although... hmm ;-)

> Andre, do you want
> to take charge of reverting the auths docs changes in the 2.0 tag (and
> removing the "obsolete" modules in HEAD)?

yep (sorry for the delay, was hardly online yester- and to-day)

nd
-- 
If God intended people to be naked, they would be born that way.
  -- Oscar Wilde