You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to cvs@httpd.apache.org by nd...@apache.org on 2005/11/13 11:37:47 UTC

svn commit: r332958 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/style/build.properties

Author: nd
Date: Sun Nov 13 02:37:43 2005
New Revision: 332958

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=332958&view=rev
Log:
bump version

Modified:
    httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/style/build.properties

Modified: httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/style/build.properties
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/style/build.properties?rev=332958&r1=332957&r2=332958&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/style/build.properties (original)
+++ httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/style/build.properties Sun Nov 13 02:37:43 2005
@@ -4,4 +4,4 @@
 noxml.fr=upgrading.html.fr
 
 # (pending) httpd version
-httpd.version=2.1.9
+httpd.version=2.2.0



Re: svn commit: r332958 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/style/build.properties

Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 11:58:09AM +0100, Andr Malo wrote:
> > Good point. I haven't figured out yet a way to unify the code and docs
> > trees in this regard (docco folks typically have only the docs tree
> > checked out).
>
> I honestly don't care if it is unified.  A single value to change in the
> docs tree would be sufficient.  If we can unify that lone value at a
> later date with the code tree, cool, but not as important as getting a
> single value in the docs directory, IMHO.

Well. I think, that should be possible. I'm gonna create something.

> > > Thanks for the prop fixes.  I didn't get any error about the empty
> > > tags being invalid - I wonder why you did.  -- justin
> >
> > `build validate-xml` :-) [1]
> > It might be questionable to reject empty lists, though. We can change
> > the DTDs if we want to.
>
> *nod*
>
> > [1] `build -projecthelp` shows all possible targets
>
> FWIW, I tried 'build help' and it didn't do anything.  So, I gave up
> trying to get help.  =(  -- justin

Ok, we need a help target ;)
The problem here is, that -projecthelp is an ant option instead of a real 
target, so I'm going to add a help target which just points to 
-projecthelp.

nd
-- 
>kann mir jemand sagen, was genau @-Domains sind?
Ein Mythos. Ein Werbetrick. Verarsche. Nenn es wie du willst...

                 -- Alexandra Buss und Björn Höhrmann in dciwam

Re: svn commit: r332958 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/style/build.properties

Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 11:58:09AM +0100, Andr Malo wrote:
> > Good point. I haven't figured out yet a way to unify the code and docs
> > trees in this regard (docco folks typically have only the docs tree
> > checked out).
>
> I honestly don't care if it is unified.  A single value to change in the
> docs tree would be sufficient.  If we can unify that lone value at a
> later date with the code tree, cool, but not as important as getting a
> single value in the docs directory, IMHO.

Well. I think, that should be possible. I'm gonna create something.

> > > Thanks for the prop fixes.  I didn't get any error about the empty
> > > tags being invalid - I wonder why you did.  -- justin
> >
> > `build validate-xml` :-) [1]
> > It might be questionable to reject empty lists, though. We can change
> > the DTDs if we want to.
>
> *nod*
>
> > [1] `build -projecthelp` shows all possible targets
>
> FWIW, I tried 'build help' and it didn't do anything.  So, I gave up
> trying to get help.  =(  -- justin

Ok, we need a help target ;)
The problem here is, that -projecthelp is an ant option instead of a real 
target, so I'm going to add a help target which just points to 
-projecthelp.

nd
-- 
>kann mir jemand sagen, was genau @-Domains sind?
Ein Mythos. Ein Werbetrick. Verarsche. Nenn es wie du willst...

                 -- Alexandra Buss und Björn Höhrmann in dciwam

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


Re: svn commit: r332958 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/style/build.properties

Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 11:58:09AM +0100, Andr Malo wrote:
> Good point. I haven't figured out yet a way to unify the code and docs trees 
> in this regard (docco folks typically have only the docs tree checked out).

I honestly don't care if it is unified.  A single value to change in the
docs tree would be sufficient.  If we can unify that lone value at a
later date with the code tree, cool, but not as important as getting a
single value in the docs directory, IMHO.

> > Thanks for the prop fixes.  I didn't get any error about the empty tags
> > being invalid - I wonder why you did.  -- justin
> 
> `build validate-xml` :-) [1]
> It might be questionable to reject empty lists, though. We can change the 
> DTDs if we want to.

*nod*

> [1] `build -projecthelp` shows all possible targets

FWIW, I tried 'build help' and it didn't do anything.  So, I gave up
trying to get help.  =(  -- justin

Re: svn commit: r332958 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/style/build.properties

Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 11:58:09AM +0100, Andr Malo wrote:
> Good point. I haven't figured out yet a way to unify the code and docs trees 
> in this regard (docco folks typically have only the docs tree checked out).

I honestly don't care if it is unified.  A single value to change in the
docs tree would be sufficient.  If we can unify that lone value at a
later date with the code tree, cool, but not as important as getting a
single value in the docs directory, IMHO.

> > Thanks for the prop fixes.  I didn't get any error about the empty tags
> > being invalid - I wonder why you did.  -- justin
> 
> `build validate-xml` :-) [1]
> It might be questionable to reject empty lists, though. We can change the 
> DTDs if we want to.

*nod*

> [1] `build -projecthelp` shows all possible targets

FWIW, I tried 'build help' and it didn't do anything.  So, I gave up
trying to get help.  =(  -- justin

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


Re: svn commit: r332958 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/style/build.properties

Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 10:37:47AM -0000, nd@apache.org wrote:
> >  # (pending) httpd version
> > -httpd.version=2.1.9
> > +httpd.version=2.2.0
>
> So, what exactly does this do?

This is more or less informal. It's taken to create the file names for 
offline packages (dist/httpd/docs). It's nice to have it in sync with the 
release, but not a strict requirement.

> It'd be really nice to have just one place to change the version number.
> But, even after chasing this property for a while, I couldn't see how
> this would be it.  $httpd_version or <httpd_version/> or something in
> each .xml file that gets substituted for some string value at build-time
> would be beautiful.

Good point. I haven't figured out yet a way to unify the code and docs trees 
in this regard (docco folks typically have only the docs tree checked out).

> Thanks for the prop fixes.  I didn't get any error about the empty tags
> being invalid - I wonder why you did.  -- justin

`build validate-xml` :-) [1]
It might be questionable to reject empty lists, though. We can change the 
DTDs if we want to.

nd

[1] `build -projecthelp` shows all possible targets
-- 
Winnetous Erbe: <http://pub.perlig.de/books.html#apache2>

Re: svn commit: r332958 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/style/build.properties

Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 10:37:47AM -0000, nd@apache.org wrote:
> >  # (pending) httpd version
> > -httpd.version=2.1.9
> > +httpd.version=2.2.0
>
> So, what exactly does this do?

This is more or less informal. It's taken to create the file names for 
offline packages (dist/httpd/docs). It's nice to have it in sync with the 
release, but not a strict requirement.

> It'd be really nice to have just one place to change the version number.
> But, even after chasing this property for a while, I couldn't see how
> this would be it.  $httpd_version or <httpd_version/> or something in
> each .xml file that gets substituted for some string value at build-time
> would be beautiful.

Good point. I haven't figured out yet a way to unify the code and docs trees 
in this regard (docco folks typically have only the docs tree checked out).

> Thanks for the prop fixes.  I didn't get any error about the empty tags
> being invalid - I wonder why you did.  -- justin

`build validate-xml` :-) [1]
It might be questionable to reject empty lists, though. We can change the 
DTDs if we want to.

nd

[1] `build -projecthelp` shows all possible targets
-- 
Winnetous Erbe: <http://pub.perlig.de/books.html#apache2>

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


Re: svn commit: r332958 - /httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/style/build.properties

Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Sun, Nov 13, 2005 at 10:37:47AM -0000, nd@apache.org wrote:
>  # (pending) httpd version
> -httpd.version=2.1.9
> +httpd.version=2.2.0

So, what exactly does this do?

It'd be really nice to have just one place to change the version number.
But, even after chasing this property for a while, I couldn't see how
this would be it.  $httpd_version or <httpd_version/> or something in
each .xml file that gets substituted for some string value at build-time
would be beautiful.

Thanks for the prop fixes.  I didn't get any error about the empty tags
being invalid - I wonder why you did.  -- justin