You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de> on 2002/11/30 02:49:54 UTC
auth-docs reversion in 2.0 branch (was: RM 2.0.44)
[xpost dev & docs]
* André Malo wrote:
> but the docs. I guess, it's better to back out them manually (and remove
> the obs_* stuff etc.) I'm willing to do that, say today/tomorrow if
> neccessary.
been there, done that. I have a patch on my harddisk that changes the
sitemap and module index, removes the authn* and authz* modules and renames
the obs_* module document files back to the old names. It fixes also the
references to the new modules in other documents (hope I've got all of
them)
Because it's a lot of file trouble in CVS I just want to get an "ok,
commit" or a "waah! don't do it".
thanks, nd
--
> [...] weiß jemand zufällig, was der Tag DIV ausgeschrieben bedeutet?
DIVerses. Benannt nach all dem unstrukturierten Zeug, was die Leute da
so reinpacken und dann absolut positionieren ...
-- Florian Hartig und Lars Kasper in dciwam
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: auth-docs reversion in 2.0 branch
Posted by 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
Posted by 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
Posted by 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: auth-docs reversion in 2.0 branch
Posted by 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
Posted by 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
Posted by Wilfredo Sánchez <ws...@wsanchez.net>.
+1 for that.
-wsv
On Friday, November 29, 2002, at 06:37 PM, André Malo wrote:
> *sigh*. And I thought, I've got it now ;-) (2.0 = keep old, 2.1
> introduce
> new)
Re: auth-docs reversion in 2.0 branch
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* 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)
> If this suceeds, then the best thing to do will probably be to revert back
> to the 2.0.43 auth docs, and then build on the new features from there.
> If you want to do that now, I won't object. But since we don't know
> exactly what is going to happen, you may want to wait.
ok, waiting for now.
The main point for me is/was to have a consistent documentation for the
2.0.44+ release(s). Only "back-tagging" in the docs is not the best
variant. Therefore it should be decided sometime...
nd, going to bed now ;-)
--
my @japh = (sub{q~Just~},sub{q~Another~},sub{q~Perl~},sub{q~Hacker~});
my $japh = q[sub japh { }]; print join #########################
[ $japh =~ /{(.)}/] -> [0] => map $_ -> () # André Malo #
=> @japh; # http://www.perlig.de/ #
Re: auth-docs reversion in 2.0 branch
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* 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)
> If this suceeds, then the best thing to do will probably be to revert back
> to the 2.0.43 auth docs, and then build on the new features from there.
> If you want to do that now, I won't object. But since we don't know
> exactly what is going to happen, you may want to wait.
ok, waiting for now.
The main point for me is/was to have a consistent documentation for the
2.0.44+ release(s). Only "back-tagging" in the docs is not the best
variant. Therefore it should be decided sometime...
nd, going to bed now ;-)
--
my @japh = (sub{q~Just~},sub{q~Another~},sub{q~Perl~},sub{q~Hacker~});
my $japh = q[sub japh { }]; print join #########################
[ $japh =~ /{(.)}/] -> [0] => map $_ -> () # André Malo #
=> @japh; # http://www.perlig.de/ #
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: auth-docs reversion in 2.0 branch (was: RM 2.0.44)
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, André Malo wrote:
> been there, done that. I have a patch on my harddisk that changes the
> sitemap and module index, removes the authn* and authz* modules and renames
> the obs_* module document files back to the old names. It fixes also the
> references to the new modules in other documents (hope I've got all of
> them)
>
> Because it's a lot of file trouble in CVS I just want to get an "ok,
> commit" or a "waah! don't do it".
Exactly what is going to happen with auth is an open issue. The aim is to
get most of the functionality of the new auth system, while retaining
compatibility with old config files. But we don't know exactly how that
will happen.
If this suceeds, then the best thing to do will probably be to revert back
to the 2.0.43 auth docs, and then build on the new features from there.
If you want to do that now, I won't object. But since we don't know
exactly what is going to happen, you may want to wait.
Joshua.
Re: auth-docs reversion in 2.0 branch (was: RM 2.0.44)
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Sat, 30 Nov 2002, André Malo wrote:
> been there, done that. I have a patch on my harddisk that changes the
> sitemap and module index, removes the authn* and authz* modules and renames
> the obs_* module document files back to the old names. It fixes also the
> references to the new modules in other documents (hope I've got all of
> them)
>
> Because it's a lot of file trouble in CVS I just want to get an "ok,
> commit" or a "waah! don't do it".
Exactly what is going to happen with auth is an open issue. The aim is to
get most of the functionality of the new auth system, while retaining
compatibility with old config files. But we don't know exactly how that
will happen.
If this suceeds, then the best thing to do will probably be to revert back
to the 2.0.43 auth docs, and then build on the new features from there.
If you want to do that now, I won't object. But since we don't know
exactly what is going to happen, you may want to wait.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org