You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by Eric Covener <co...@gmail.com> on 2013/12/04 22:06:36 UTC
compatibility tags in 2.4.x tree
If a module in the 2.4.x doc has inherited a compatibility tag of
"first available in 2.3.x", should we
[ ] leave it
[ ] wipe it entirely
[ ] change it to 2.4.0 to give an indication it's new in this release?
I am split between 2 and 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: compatibility tags in 2.4.x tree
Posted by Daniel Ruggeri <DR...@primary.net>.
On 12/4/2013 3:06 PM, Eric Covener wrote:
> If a module in the 2.4.x doc has inherited a compatibility tag of
> "first available in 2.3.x", should we
>
> [ ] leave it
> [ ] wipe it entirely
> [ ] change it to 2.4.0 to give an indication it's new in this release?
>
> I am split between 2 and 3.
Leaving it as-is should be fine. Although few, those versions do exist
and it's more useful to know exactly when something was added than to
guess. I think everyone is capable of recognizing that 2.3.x < 2.4.x
... unless the goal is to deny the existence of the odd-number versions.
In that case, I'd say 3.
--
Daniel Ruggeri
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: compatibility tags in 2.4.x tree
Posted by Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.
Le 05/12/2013 20:45, Christophe JAILLET a écrit :
> Le 04/12/2013 22:06, Eric Covener a écrit :
>> If a module in the 2.4.x doc has inherited a compatibility tag of
>> "first available in 2.3.x", should we
>>
>> [ ] leave it
>> [ ] wipe it entirely
>> [ ] change it to 2.4.0 to give an indication it's new in this release?
>>
>> I am split between 2 and 3.
>
> Personally, I consider that new_features_2_4.html is the right place for
> that.
>
> CJ
Opps.
[X] wipe it entirely
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: compatibility tags in 2.4.x tree
Posted by Christophe JAILLET <ch...@wanadoo.fr>.
Le 04/12/2013 22:06, Eric Covener a écrit :
> If a module in the 2.4.x doc has inherited a compatibility tag of
> "first available in 2.3.x", should we
>
> [ ] leave it
> [ ] wipe it entirely
> [ ] change it to 2.4.0 to give an indication it's new in this release?
>
> I am split between 2 and 3.
Personally, I consider that new_features_2_4.html is the right place for
that.
CJ
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: compatibility tags in 2.4.x tree
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
On Wednesday 04 December 2013 22:06:36 Eric Covener wrote:
> If a module in the 2.4.x doc has inherited a compatibility tag of
> "first available in 2.3.x", should we
>
> [ ] leave it
> [ ] wipe it entirely
> [ ] change it to 2.4.0 to give an indication it's new in this release?
>
> I am split between 2 and 3.
[x] leave it
because (2) would confuse upgraders and (3) is just wrong.
nd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org