You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to cvs@httpd.apache.org by Paul Richards <pa...@hyperreal.com> on 1996/11/17 21:09:32 UTC
cvs commit: apache/docs/unref/changelog v0.4.html
paul 96/11/17 12:09:32
Added: docs API.html FAQ.html apache1.0.html auth_dbm.html
compat_notes.html content-negotiation.html
core.html custom-error.html directives.html
features.html howto.html index.html install.html
invoking.html known_bugs.html magic_types.html
man-template.html mod_access.html mod_alias.html
mod_asis.html mod_auth.html mod_auth_dbm.html
mod_cgi.html mod_cookies.html mod_dir.html
mod_dld.html mod_imap.html mod_include.html
mod_log_agent.html mod_log_common.html
mod_log_config.html mod_log_referer.html
mod_mime.html mod_negotiation.html mod_userdir.html
modules.html nopgp.html perf-bsd44.html
perf-dec.html perf.html process-model.html
security_tips.html vif.info vif.info.txt
virtual-host.html
docs/unref B68.html E66.html
docs/unref/changelog v0.4.html
Log:
Add 1.0 docs to cvs.
Re: cvs commit: apache/docs/unref/changelog v0.4.html
Posted by Paul Richards <p....@elsevier.co.uk>.
Alexei Kosut <ak...@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us> writes:
> There are at least three arguments, in order of increasing importance:
>
> 1. Some people need to work on the docs, but not the source. As you
> point out, this is easily done in CVS.
>
> 2. Some people (possibly most) want to work on the source, but not the
> docs. For anyone on a slow Net connection (like me), or who uses the
> from-cvs snapshots, the extra baggage of the docs is just a
> pain. There is no easy way to fix this in CVS.
So is this. In fact, I've been getting just the src directory back to
my local box.
> 3. The two are not developed in parallel, as much as it seems they
> are. The Apache 1.1 docs are not done exactly at the same time as the
> Apache 1.1 source. So a "cvs tag APACHE_1_2_0" done in the root Apache
> directory (as is neccessary) will add that tag to the docs, which may
> make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Paul, you yourself used a
> seperate DOCS_* tag. Making seperate modules make a whole heck of a
> lot more sense.
They should be developed in parallel. Why would they not be? I used a
separate DOCS tag because it would have been wrong to retrospectively
put files on the release tags since those files were not in those
releases.
> 4. It was already vetoed. Therefore, in order to make that change, you
> needed, procedurally, to either get me to reverse my veto, or convince
> the rest of the group I was certifiably insane for vetoing it (as per
> http://dev.apache.org/httpd/voting.html). You did neither. You didn't
I didn't remember a veto, I remember some discussion but nothing as
finalised as a veto.
> Further, you did it wrong. All the docs are completely out of
> order and screwed up, and because you didn't branch them, we can't
> even go back and fix the 1.0/1.1 docs. If you're going to mess with
> the docs (and I actually support, in theory, what you were doing with
> CVS), you might as well get it right.
Branching them wouldn't make any difference. The idea of branching and
checking out old copies wasn't a very good one in retrospect.
--
Paul Richards. Originative Solutions Ltd. (Netcraft Ltd. contractor)
Elsevier Science TIS online journal project.
Email: p.richards@elsevier.co.uk
Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 (0)1865 843155
Re: cvs commit: apache/docs/unref/changelog v0.4.html
Posted by Alexei Kosut <ak...@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>.
On 17 Nov 1996, Paul Richards wrote:
> If the only arguments are that you want to be able to work on them
> separately then we can create modules for them, I've already created a
> docs module.
There are at least three arguments, in order of increasing importance:
1. Some people need to work on the docs, but not the source. As you
point out, this is easily done in CVS.
2. Some people (possibly most) want to work on the source, but not the
docs. For anyone on a slow Net connection (like me), or who uses the
from-cvs snapshots, the extra baggage of the docs is just a
pain. There is no easy way to fix this in CVS.
3. The two are not developed in parallel, as much as it seems they
are. The Apache 1.1 docs are not done exactly at the same time as the
Apache 1.1 source. So a "cvs tag APACHE_1_2_0" done in the root Apache
directory (as is neccessary) will add that tag to the docs, which may
make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Paul, you yourself used a
seperate DOCS_* tag. Making seperate modules make a whole heck of a
lot more sense.
4. It was already vetoed. Therefore, in order to make that change, you
needed, procedurally, to either get me to reverse my veto, or convince
the rest of the group I was certifiably insane for vetoing it (as per
http://dev.apache.org/httpd/voting.html). You did neither. You didn't
even try to get any +1 votes for it. While I think this is okay for a
minor bug fix - Roy wakes up one morning and realizes he meant
"http_core.c" instead of "core", or Brian fixes the Makefile so it
complies (and actually, Rob, that fix had been brought up and given +1
votes by at least three people, including myself) - for a major change
in the CVS tree, this is purely unacceptable.
Further, you did it wrong. All the docs are completely out of
order and screwed up, and because you didn't branch them, we can't
even go back and fix the 1.0/1.1 docs. If you're going to mess with
the docs (and I actually support, in theory, what you were doing with
CVS), you might as well get it right.
We need someone to maintain the Apache docs: to set up a CVS tree in
apache-docs similar to what Paul did in apache/docs, but with the
right files and branches, set up a script that updates the web pages
from this every so often (with a way to make it happen on demand), and
above all, get three +1 votes before they do anything. And also make
sure the 1.2 beta docs are done for December 1st. (this means
pestering people who made changes to document that).
I'll volunteer.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Alexei Kosut <ak...@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us> The Apache HTTP Server
URL: http://www.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us/~akosut/ http://www.apache.org/
Re: cvs commit: apache/docs/unref/changelog v0.4.html
Posted by Paul Richards <p....@elsevier.co.uk>.
Brian Behlendorf <br...@organic.com> writes:
> Paul, what is up with this? We agreed that apache-docs should be its own cvs
> module, separate from the code tree.
>
I know, I know. See other mail.
I'll move apache/docs to apache-docs when people have checked that we
have everything setup properly in the docs area but I'd like to
re-open that discussion since it's going to be difficult to tag the
docs with the src at release time if we keep them separately, if
nothing else I'm concerned about keeping things in sync.
If the only arguments are that you want to be able to work on them
separately then we can create modules for them, I've already created a
docs module.
--
Paul Richards. Originative Solutions Ltd. (Netcraft Ltd. contractor)
Elsevier Science TIS online journal project.
Email: p.richards@elsevier.co.uk
Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 (0)1865 843155
Re: cvs commit: apache/docs/unref/changelog v0.4.html
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@organic.com>.
Paul, what is up with this? We agreed that apache-docs should be its own cvs
module, separate from the code tree.
Brian
On Sun, 17 Nov 1996, Paul Richards wrote:
> paul 96/11/17 12:09:32
>
> Added: docs API.html FAQ.html apache1.0.html auth_dbm.html
> compat_notes.html content-negotiation.html
> core.html custom-error.html directives.html
> features.html howto.html index.html install.html
> invoking.html known_bugs.html magic_types.html
> man-template.html mod_access.html mod_alias.html
> mod_asis.html mod_auth.html mod_auth_dbm.html
> mod_cgi.html mod_cookies.html mod_dir.html
> mod_dld.html mod_imap.html mod_include.html
> mod_log_agent.html mod_log_common.html
> mod_log_config.html mod_log_referer.html
> mod_mime.html mod_negotiation.html mod_userdir.html
> modules.html nopgp.html perf-bsd44.html
> perf-dec.html perf.html process-model.html
> security_tips.html vif.info vif.info.txt
> virtual-host.html
> docs/unref B68.html E66.html
> docs/unref/changelog v0.4.html
> Log:
> Add 1.0 docs to cvs.
>
>
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com www.apache.org hyperreal.com http://www.organic.com/JOBS
Re: cvs commit: apache/docs/unref/changelog v0.4.html
Posted by Brian Behlendorf <br...@organic.com>.
Paul, what is up with this? We agreed that apache-docs should be its own cvs
module, separate from the code tree.
Brian
On Sun, 17 Nov 1996, Paul Richards wrote:
> paul 96/11/17 12:09:32
>
> Added: docs API.html FAQ.html apache1.0.html auth_dbm.html
> compat_notes.html content-negotiation.html
> core.html custom-error.html directives.html
> features.html howto.html index.html install.html
> invoking.html known_bugs.html magic_types.html
> man-template.html mod_access.html mod_alias.html
> mod_asis.html mod_auth.html mod_auth_dbm.html
> mod_cgi.html mod_cookies.html mod_dir.html
> mod_dld.html mod_imap.html mod_include.html
> mod_log_agent.html mod_log_common.html
> mod_log_config.html mod_log_referer.html
> mod_mime.html mod_negotiation.html mod_userdir.html
> modules.html nopgp.html perf-bsd44.html
> perf-dec.html perf.html process-model.html
> security_tips.html vif.info vif.info.txt
> virtual-host.html
> docs/unref B68.html E66.html
> docs/unref/changelog v0.4.html
> Log:
> Add 1.0 docs to cvs.
>
>
--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--
brian@organic.com www.apache.org hyperreal.com http://www.organic.com/JOBS