You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@httpd.apache.org by Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net> on 2005/09/19 23:02:40 UTC
/docs/2.1/
I want to get all of the correct relevant docs into 2.1 before the next
beta. but;
colm@minotaur (/x1/www/httpd.apache.org/docs/2.1) $ svn info
Path: .
URL: http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/trunk/docs/manual
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.1/ right now points to the manual
directory from trunk (which is 2.3).
Since now 2.1 is starting to get to the point where there are things in
trunk that won't make it in to 2.2.0, and there are already cases of
documentation in trunk that shouldn't be in the 2.2.x branch, I'd like
to make /docs/2.1/ be the 2.1 documentation tree.
Anyway, I'd like to do;
mv /x1/www/httpd.apache.org/docs/2.1 /x1/www/httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk
svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual \ /x1/www/httpd.apache.org/docs/2.1
Right now, the only think this will break is ./caching.html, which I'll
make sure to backport in advance.
Any objections? I'll do this tomorrow otherwise :)
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
Re: /docs/2.1/
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> And who knows, trunk might become 3.0 (it won't, but I just mean that
> using 2.3 doesn't solve this problem).
>
> I don't think /docs/trunk should be linked to from anywhere, just a
> convienence for developers. "/docs/2.3" should be created once 2.3/2.4
> becomes "officially" in development.
Then we should wait until it becomes official. There's no need to hurry ;-)
The point is: whether we want it or not -- it *will* be linked from
somewhere (c&p of the url bar to forums, mailing lists, newsgroups)
nd
--
"Das Verhalten von Gates hatte mir bewiesen, dass ich auf ihn und seine
beiden Gefährten nicht zu zählen brauchte" -- Karl May, "Winnetou III"
Im Westen was neues: <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: /docs/2.1/
Posted by Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net>.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 04:39:36PM +0200, André Malo wrote:
> > I vote for /docs/trunk/ always pointing to the current trunk.
>
> /2.3/ would be the way. Keep URLs stable!
But by definition the trunk tree will always be unstable, in this
respect :)
And who knows, trunk might become 3.0 (it won't, but I just mean that
using 2.3 doesn't solve this problem).
I don't think /docs/trunk should be linked to from anywhere, just a
convienence for developers. "/docs/2.3" should be created once 2.3/2.4
becomes "officially" in development.
Does that help?
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: /docs/2.1/
Posted by André Malo <nd...@perlig.de>.
* Paul Querna wrote:
> Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> > This leaves the question about what to do with the trunk documentation.
> > Should http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ be made work perpetually?
> > Or should the manual from trunk simply never be on-line?
>
> I vote for /docs/trunk/ always pointing to the current trunk.
/2.3/ would be the way. Keep URLs stable!
/trunk/ might be a redirect (302) to the current trunk version.
nd
--
print "Just Another Perl Hacker";
# André Malo, <http://www.perlig.de/> #
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: /docs/2.1/
Posted by Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net>.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 02:16:04PM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> >Why would trunk point to the current stable shipping version?
>
> D'uh oh(!) Yes, a /docs/trunk/ isn't a bad idea. I shortened that as
> I read it, and thought you were speaking of /docs/ (vanilla).
That still gets redirected to /docs/1.3/ :)
> >>"Hey user, THIS is the version you should be using already, but here are
> >>the links to old versions and current experimental branch".
> >
> >Right now, we have two experimental branches. This is the problem.
>
> But we have /docs/2.1/ (which should be /docs/2.2/ IMHO) - right?
Probably time to make /docs/2.2 work alright.
> That solves the issue?
Nope. Right now the documentation in trunk and in the 2.2.x tree differ,
because trunk and 2.2.x contain some different features. As of today
this less pronounced than it has been over the last few weeks, but all
the same, there is no online place to review the trunk/ documentation.
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: /docs/2.1/
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:53:43AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
>
>>Paul Querna wrote:
>>
>>>Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This leaves the question about what to do with the trunk documentation.
>>>>Should http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ be made work perpetually?
>>>>Or should the manual from trunk simply never be on-line?
>>>
>>>
>>>I vote for /docs/trunk/ always pointing to the current trunk.
>>
>>--1 ... it should point to the current stable shipping version, e.g.
>
>
> Why would trunk point to the current stable shipping version?
D'uh oh(!) Yes, a /docs/trunk/ isn't a bad idea. I shortened that as
I read it, and thought you were speaking of /docs/ (vanilla).
>>"Hey user, THIS is the version you should be using already, but here are
>>the links to old versions and current experimental branch".
>
> Right now, we have two experimental branches. This is the problem.
But we have /docs/2.1/ (which should be /docs/2.2/ IMHO) - right? That
solves the issue?
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: /docs/2.1/
Posted by Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net>.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:53:43AM -0500, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Paul Querna wrote:
> >Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> >
> >>This leaves the question about what to do with the trunk documentation.
> >>Should http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ be made work perpetually?
> >>Or should the manual from trunk simply never be on-line?
> >
> >
> >I vote for /docs/trunk/ always pointing to the current trunk.
>
> --1 ... it should point to the current stable shipping version, e.g.
Why would trunk point to the current stable shipping version?
> "Hey user, THIS is the version you should be using already, but here are
> the links to old versions and current experimental branch".
Right now, we have two experimental branches. This is the problem.
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: /docs/2.1/
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Paul Querna wrote:
> Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
>
>> This leaves the question about what to do with the trunk documentation.
>> Should http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ be made work perpetually?
>> Or should the manual from trunk simply never be on-line?
>
>
> I vote for /docs/trunk/ always pointing to the current trunk.
--1 ... it should point to the current stable shipping version, e.g.
"Hey user, THIS is the version you should be using already, but here are
the links to old versions and current experimental branch".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: /docs/2.1/
Posted by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>.
Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> This leaves the question about what to do with the trunk documentation.
> Should http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ be made work perpetually?
> Or should the manual from trunk simply never be on-line?
I vote for /docs/trunk/ always pointing to the current trunk.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: /docs/2.1/
Posted by Colm MacCarthaigh <co...@stdlib.net>.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 10:02:40PM +0100, Colm MacCarthaigh wrote:
> mv /x1/www/httpd.apache.org/docs/2.1 /x1/www/httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk
> svn co http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual \ /x1/www/httpd.apache.org/docs/2.1
>
> Right now, the only think this will break is ./caching.html, which I'll
> make sure to backport in advance.
>
> Any objections? I'll do this tomorrow otherwise :)
I've gone ahead and done this. so http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.1/ is
now the manual from the 2.2.x branch.
This leaves the question about what to do with the trunk documentation.
Should http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/ be made work perpetually?
Or should the manual from trunk simply never be on-line?
I know I find it useful to have the manual from trunk somewhere online
for reference and review.
--
Colm MacCárthaigh Public Key: colm+pgp@stdlib.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org