You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@apr.apache.org by Lucian Adrian Grijincu <lu...@avira.com> on 2006/12/22 13:43:20 UTC

Outdated documentation on http://apr.apache.org/docs/apr/

The documentation on http://apr.apache.org/docs/apr/ is a bit outdated.

    * "Generated on Mon Feb 7 13:18:24 2005 for Apache Portable Runtime
      by doxygen 1.3.7"


APR has had a few releases since that time:

    * 1.2.8 : released December 4, 2006
    * 1.2.7 : released April 14, 2006
    * 1.2.6 : released March 25, 2006
    * 1.2.5 : not released
    * 1.2.4 : not released
    * 1.2.3 : not released
    * 1.2.2 : released October 11, 2005
    * 1.2.1 : released August 18, 2005
    * 1.2.0 : not released
    * 1.1.2 : no such version
    * 1.1.1 : released March 17, 2005

Wouldn't it be better if the documentation on the site resembled the
latest stable build, and not version 1.1.0?

The same stands for http://apr.apache.org/docs/apr-util/ and
http://apr.apache.org/docs/apr-iconv/.

-- 
Best regards,

Lucian Adrian Grijincu
Software Developer
Avira Soft srl

lucian.grijincu@avira.com
http://www.avira.com

Re: Outdated documentation on http://apr.apache.org/docs/apr/

Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On 12/22/06, Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 08:12 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:
>
> > Actually, we should probably have documentation for all release versions
> > currently available and maybe even the the trunk. Similar to what httpd
> > folks do.
>
> More importantly, would there be objections if I made that change to APR
> web site?

Sounds good to me.

-garrett

Re: Outdated documentation on http://apr.apache.org/docs/apr/

Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 08:12 +1100, Bojan Smojver wrote:

> Actually, we should probably have documentation for all release versions
> currently available and maybe even the the trunk. Similar to what httpd
> folks do.

More importantly, would there be objections if I made that change to APR
web site?

-- 
Bojan

Re: Outdated documentation on http://apr.apache.org/docs/apr/

Posted by Graham Leggett <mi...@sharp.fm>.
Bojan Smojver wrote:

> Actually, we should probably have documentation for all release versions
> currently available and maybe even the the trunk. Similar to what httpd
> folks do.

+1.

Regards,
Graham
--

Re: Outdated documentation on http://apr.apache.org/docs/apr/

Posted by Bojan Smojver <bo...@rexursive.com>.
On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 14:43 +0200, Lucian Adrian Grijincu wrote:

> Wouldn't it be better if the documentation on the site resembled the
> latest stable build, and not version 1.1.0?

Actually, we should probably have documentation for all release versions
currently available and maybe even the the trunk. Similar to what httpd
folks do.

-- 
Bojan