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 03:37:47 UTC
Re: auth-docs reversion in 2.0 branch
* 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
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)