New CVS module for docco

[Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>]

All right, it looks like there's sufficient support for this
to move forward.  Before I make the CVS modules and move
things around, though, the question arises: should they be
named using "http[d]" or "apache"?  The Apache HTTP Server
project is now just one of those under the Apache Software
Foundation umbrella and supported by the ASF infrastructure
(including the CVS repository machine).

It seems as though

a) the API docs should be considered part of the server
   documentation, and
b) the version-specific documentation should be kept
   separate, and
c) all the documentation should be under one module.

This would lead to a structure something like

 httpd-docs/
   1.3/     (current server docs go here)
     API/   (current apache-devsite/apidoc/ goes here)
   2.0/
     API/

The question I'm asking whether the top level should be named
"httpd-docs" or "apache-docs"?  Given that the name Apache now
means more than just the Web server, I'm in favour of the former.
However, that would put it at odds with the existing module
names (apache-1.3, apache-2.0, et cetera).

Opinions?
-- 
#ken    P-)}

Ken Coar                    <http://Web.Golux.Com/coar/>
Apache Software Foundation  <http://www.apache.org/>
"Apache Server for Dummies" <http://ASFD.MeepZor.Com/>

Re: Sv: New CVS module for docco

[Mark J Cox <ma...@awe.com>]

> +1  It took me a month to find dev.apache.org

I just noticed that dev.apache.org ranks 2nd on an Altavista search for
"apache", with Hyperreal's apache-status page taking lead position :)

Mark
Mark J Cox, .......................................... www.awe.com/mark
Apache Software Foundation ..... OpenSSL Group ..... Apache Week editor

Sv: New CVS module for docco

[Henrik Vendelbo <hv...@bluprints.com>]

+1  It took me a month to find dev.apache.org

----- Original Message ----- > 
> a) Just as we have jakarta.apache.org, gui.apache.org, and soon more, we
> will have an httpd.apache.org.  
> 
> b) There'll be a web site rooted at http://httpd.apache.org/
> 
> c) This mailing list will move to something like "dev@httpd.apache.org" or
> "general@httpd.apache.org", with module-specific lists as well.
> 
> d) The module naming structure for ASF projects should be the
> projectname-modulename.  E.g., we have jakarta-tomcat, jakarta-check,
> jakarta-tools.  So I'd expect over time to move to httpd-1.2, httpd-1.3,
> httpd-2.0, httpd-site, etc.
> 
> Again, I'm fine with 'httpd'.  Now is the time to debate alternatives,
> though.
> 
> Brian

Re: New CVS module for docco

[tv...@aventail.com]

Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net> writes:

> c) This mailing list will move to something like "dev@httpd.apache.org" or
> "general@httpd.apache.org", with module-specific lists as well.

What about something like "httpd-dev@lists.apache.org". This makes writing
filter rules really easy. For example, in gnus:

	("lists.mod_ssl.\\2"
	 "^\\(To\\|Cc\\|CC\\|cc\\):.*modssl-\\(.*\\)@modssl.org")

-Tom

Re: New CVS module for docco

[Brian Behlendorf <br...@collab.net>]

Yes, this is a larger issue, one well worth discussing.  The HTTP server
project needs some way to distinguish itself other than just "Apache".
"Apache HTTP Server" is fine, and probably most appropriate.  Here are the
ramifications:

a) Just as we have jakarta.apache.org, gui.apache.org, and soon more, we
will have an httpd.apache.org.  

b) There'll be a web site rooted at http://httpd.apache.org/

c) This mailing list will move to something like "dev@httpd.apache.org" or
"general@httpd.apache.org", with module-specific lists as well.

d) The module naming structure for ASF projects should be the
projectname-modulename.  E.g., we have jakarta-tomcat, jakarta-check,
jakarta-tools.  So I'd expect over time to move to httpd-1.2, httpd-1.3,
httpd-2.0, httpd-site, etc.

Again, I'm fine with 'httpd'.  Now is the time to debate alternatives,
though.

	Brian

On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> All right, it looks like there's sufficient support for this
> to move forward.  Before I make the CVS modules and move
> things around, though, the question arises: should they be
> named using "http[d]" or "apache"?  The Apache HTTP Server
> project is now just one of those under the Apache Software
> Foundation umbrella and supported by the ASF infrastructure
> (including the CVS repository machine).
> 
> It seems as though
> 
> a) the API docs should be considered part of the server
>    documentation, and
> b) the version-specific documentation should be kept
>    separate, and
> c) all the documentation should be under one module.
> 
> This would lead to a structure something like
> 
>  httpd-docs/
>    1.3/     (current server docs go here)
>      API/   (current apache-devsite/apidoc/ goes here)
>    2.0/
>      API/
> 
> The question I'm asking whether the top level should be named
> "httpd-docs" or "apache-docs"?  Given that the name Apache now
> means more than just the Web server, I'm in favour of the former.
> However, that would put it at odds with the existing module
> names (apache-1.3, apache-2.0, et cetera).
> 
> Opinions?
>