You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> on 2018/03/22 15:48:05 UTC
Re: [POLL] Final status of 2.2.x branch
[Note switch to docs@]
On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
> On 02/22/2018 01:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Luca Toscano <to...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> does this mean also removing the doc pages? If so I'd be a little bit
>>> concerned, there are still a lot of people using 2.2 and even
>>> not-up-to-date
>>> documentation is still better than nothing. Maybe we could send an email
>>> to
>>> users@ to announce this beforehand?
>>
>>
>> We've long published 1.3 and 2.0 docs after the 2.4 launch. There's no
>> reason to drop 2.2 docs from the website entirely at this time. It is
>> a question whether the 2.2 docs are maintained, or simply kept
>> available in final form?
>>
>> Are you seeking to keep httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/ open for
>> revision? There need to be three project members willing to maintain
>> and review each others changes, or it is now time to simply close the
>> branch to most edits.
>>
>
> I've been away for a bit, so I probably lack context here.
>
> We didn't close the 1.3 docs to edit until ... well, they can still be
> edited, although it's been years since anyone has.
Right, none of this is "closed". What it means is that there is a new
file in the httpd-2.2/ tree that says this branch is closed, to warn
people with the ancient checkout that they probably want to find
a different branch :) We haven't de-synchronized the published
site (and won't) from the still (and to remain) r/w repository.
> We should keep the 2.2 docs online, for sure. Making them continue to be
> updated is fine - they still have typos and broken links in them that need
> to be fixed.
>
> The 1.3 and 2.0 docs died due to lack of interest, not due to policy. And,
> at some point (like after the 2.6 release, for example) we'll want to go
> back and add some rel canonical stuff in the headers to point to the newest
> version.
We already *have* all that, and have for a long time since 2.4 release.
After EOL, we added the stronger caveat in human-readable form.
So given the software is EOL, and that users can toggle between
versions both stale and current and future, do we want the 2.2 form
of the documentation to be crawled and indexed anymore?
> I'm just saying that I think it's fine to let them die a natural death,
> rather than killing them by policy.
Well, here's my question, when did we get around to this patch on 1.3
and 2.0?
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en"><head>
-<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type" />
+<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type" /><meta content="noindex, nofollow"
name="robots" />
<!--
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
This file is generated from xml source: DO NOT EDIT
I have this ready-to-commit on the generator and generated content,
and I believe that is the last necessary change to "retire" an old rev
of the documentation. It is still unlocked and, as with 1.3, could still
be updated to repair broken links, etc.
Opinions on this patch to httpd.a.o/docs/2.2/?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: [POLL] Final status of 2.2.x branch
Posted by William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
General question to all lurking in this thread...
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 10:48 AM, William A Rowe Jr <wr...@rowe-clan.net> wrote:
> [Note switch to docs@]
>
> On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>
>> The 1.3 and 2.0 docs died due to lack of interest, not due to policy. And,
>> at some point (like after the 2.6 release, for example) we'll want to go
>> back and add some rel canonical stuff in the headers to point to the newest
>> version.
>
> We already *have* all that, and have for a long time since 2.4 release.
> After EOL, we added the stronger caveat in human-readable form.
>
> So given the software is EOL, and that users can toggle between
> versions both stale and current and future, do we want the 2.2 form
> of the documentation to be crawled and indexed anymore?
>
>> I'm just saying that I think it's fine to let them die a natural death,
>> rather than killing them by policy.
>
> Well, here's my question, when did we get around to this patch on 1.3
> and 2.0?
>
> @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en"><head>
> -<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type" />
> +<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
> http-equiv="Content-Type" /><meta content="noindex, nofollow"
> name="robots" />
> <!--
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
> This file is generated from xml source: DO NOT EDIT
>
> I have this ready-to-commit on the generator and generated content,
> and I believe that is the last necessary change to "retire" an old rev
> of the documentation. It is still unlocked and, as with 1.3, could still
> be updated to repair broken links, etc.
>
> Opinions on this patch to httpd.a.o/docs/2.2/?
The only negative consequence I can think of would be some phrase
or directive or directive arg keyword removed from 2.4.x that was not
present in 2.2.x docs. Can we think of one?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org