Fwd: svn commit: r558718 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod: mod_cgi.html.en mod_cgi.xml

[Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com>]

On 23/07/07, noodl@apache.org <no...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: noodl
> Date: Mon Jul 23 06:31:19 2007
> New Revision: 558718
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=558718
> Log:
> Demote use of AddType for cgi and remove redundant paragraph regarding DOCUMENT_ROOT
>
> Modified:
>     httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_cgi.html.en
>     httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod/mod_cgi.xml

(gah, wrong list)

Any objections to this before I backport it for 2.x? It follows from
this thread:

http://tinyurl.com/ywy6lt

Sorry about all the commit noise today, I had quite a long list of
changes pending.

--
noodl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: svn commit: r558718 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod: mod_cgi.html.en mod_cgi.xml

[André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>]

* Vincent Bray wrote: 


> On 23/07/07, André Malo <nd...@perlig.de> wrote:
> > * Vincent Bray wrote:
> > > It doesn't make the merge any easier (that often works fine with two
> > > separate WCs like "svn merge -r99:100 ../httpd-trunk .") but it would
> > > allow for a single commit rather than two or three (hence making it
> > > more likely that 2.0 would get fixes).
> >
> > FWIW, I personally like it to see 3 commits, for easier oversight
> > and "think-before-you-type" reasons.
> > However, I do prefer separate xml and html commits, too :-)
>
> Does that avoid the issue of trailing meta data? At the moment I'll
> fiddle the xml, build the html version, commit both. Then the next
> cycle gets a bunch of build detritus because of the new revision
> number from the previous commit.

You would have a separation between edited and generated data. So looked at 
it that way - yes.

nd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: svn commit: r558718 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod: mod_cgi.html.en mod_cgi.xml

[Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com>]

On 23/07/07, André Malo <nd...@perlig.de> wrote:
> * Vincent Bray wrote:
> > It doesn't make the merge any easier (that often works fine with two
> > separate WCs like "svn merge -r99:100 ../httpd-trunk .") but it would
> > allow for a single commit rather than two or three (hence making it
> > more likely that 2.0 would get fixes).
>
> FWIW, I personally like it to see 3 commits, for easier oversight
> and "think-before-you-type" reasons.
> However, I do prefer separate xml and html commits, too :-)

Does that avoid the issue of trailing meta data? At the moment I'll
fiddle the xml, build the html version, commit both. Then the next
cycle gets a bunch of build detritus because of the new revision
number from the previous commit.

-- 
noodl

Re: svn commit: r558718 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod: mod_cgi.html.en mod_cgi.xml

[André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>]

* Vincent Bray wrote: 

> On 23/07/07, Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca> wrote:
> > Optimally you should include both the "Backport r..." and the original
> > log message, but I don't think anyone will object to having just one
> > or the other. Check out the script at
> > people.apache.org:~slive/svn.merge
> > which I believe sets that up by default. (I didn't write that script;
> > Someone on dev@httpd did but I can't recall who.)
>
> Thanks.
>
> > Merge tracking overall is a weak point of subversion at the moment,
> > but is being actively worked on for future versions.
> >
> > I'm not really sure why you say that checking out at a higher level
> > would help anything. The way subversion works, each directory is
> > potentially independent. So it should matter whether you have
> > ~/httpd/branches/2.2.x/ or just ~/httpd-2.2.x/.
>
> It doesn't make the merge any easier (that often works fine with two
> separate WCs like "svn merge -r99:100 ../httpd-trunk .") but it would
> allow for a single commit rather than two or three (hence making it
> more likely that 2.0 would get fixes).

FWIW, I personally like it to see 3 commits, for easier oversight 
and "think-before-you-type" reasons.
However, I do prefer separate xml and html commits, too :-)

nd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: svn commit: r558718 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod: mod_cgi.html.en mod_cgi.xml

[Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com>]

On 23/07/07, Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca> wrote:
> Optimally you should include both the "Backport r..." and the original
> log message, but I don't think anyone will object to having just one
> or the other. Check out the script at
> people.apache.org:~slive/svn.merge
> which I believe sets that up by default. (I didn't write that script;
> Someone on dev@httpd did but I can't recall who.)

Thanks.

> Merge tracking overall is a weak point of subversion at the moment,
> but is being actively worked on for future versions.
>
> I'm not really sure why you say that checking out at a higher level
> would help anything. The way subversion works, each directory is
> potentially independent. So it should matter whether you have
> ~/httpd/branches/2.2.x/ or just ~/httpd-2.2.x/.

It doesn't make the merge any easier (that often works fine with two
separate WCs like "svn merge -r99:100 ../httpd-trunk .") but it would
allow for a single commit rather than two or three (hence making it
more likely that 2.0 would get fixes).

-- 
noodl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: svn commit: r558718 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod: mod_cgi.html.en mod_cgi.xml

[Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>]

On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/07/07, Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca> wrote:
> > On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Any objections to this before I backport it for 2.x? It follows from
> > > this thread:
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/ywy6lt
> >
> > Got to it.
>
> Will do.
>
> Regarding svn commit messages.. Clearly the dev@ guys have a
> prescribed formula for theirs but docs@ doesn't (as far as I can see).
> When backporting, is it better to have e.g. "Backport r273654 to 2.2"
> or the same message as the original commit?
>
> It's a shame there isn't a cleaner way to apply patches to multiple
> branches simultaneously. I guess if there were, it'd be more likely
> that relevant changes would be kept in sync (for 2.0 in particular).
> The simple solution would be to checkout at a higher level that
> included trunk and the relevant branches but I'm not aware of a way to
> do that which wouldn't also give all the tags and specialised
> branches. Any clues?

Optimally you should include both the "Backport r..." and the original
log message, but I don't think anyone will object to having just one
or the other. Check out the script at
people.apache.org:~slive/svn.merge
which I believe sets that up by default. (I didn't write that script;
Someone on dev@httpd did but I can't recall who.)

Merge tracking overall is a weak point of subversion at the moment,
but is being actively worked on for future versions.

I'm not really sure why you say that checking out at a higher level
would help anything. The way subversion works, each directory is
potentially independent. So it should matter whether you have
~/httpd/branches/2.2.x/ or just ~/httpd-2.2.x/.

Joshua.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: svn commit: r558718 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod: mod_cgi.html.en mod_cgi.xml

[Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com>]

On 23/07/07, Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca> wrote:
> On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Any objections to this before I backport it for 2.x? It follows from
> > this thread:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/ywy6lt
>
> Got to it.

Will do.

Regarding svn commit messages.. Clearly the dev@ guys have a
prescribed formula for theirs but docs@ doesn't (as far as I can see).
When backporting, is it better to have e.g. "Backport r273654 to 2.2"
or the same message as the original commit?

It's a shame there isn't a cleaner way to apply patches to multiple
branches simultaneously. I guess if there were, it'd be more likely
that relevant changes would be kept in sync (for 2.0 in particular).
The simple solution would be to checkout at a higher level that
included trunk and the relevant branches but I'm not aware of a way to
do that which wouldn't also give all the tags and specialised
branches. Any clues?

-- 
noodl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org

Re: svn commit: r558718 - in /httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual/mod: mod_cgi.html.en mod_cgi.xml

[Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>]

On 7/23/07, Vincent Bray <no...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/07/07, noodl@apache.org <no...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Author: noodl
> > Date: Mon Jul 23 06:31:19 2007
> > New Revision: 558718
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&rev=558718
> > Log:
> > Demote use of AddType for cgi and remove redundant paragraph regarding DOCUMENT_ROOT

> Any objections to this before I backport it for 2.x? It follows from
> this thread:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ywy6lt

Got to it.

>
> Sorry about all the commit noise today, I had quite a long list of
> changes pending.

Improvements to the docs are not noise.

Joshua.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org