Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-apreq-dev-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 64178 invoked by uid 500); 11 Jul 2002 19:47:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact apreq-dev-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list apreq-dev@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 64142 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2002 19:47:05 -0000 Message-ID: <3D2DE345.9F1434E4@Golux.Com> Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 15:57:57 -0400 From: Rodent of Unusual Size Organization: The Apache Software Foundation X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joshua Slive CC: site-dev@apache.org, libapreq developers Subject: Re: Non-listing of the project? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Joshua Slive wrote: > > No, I don't think so. The docs/ and xdocs/ directories are really > just a hack that allows us to keep the generated html and the > source xml in the same tree. The docs/ tree is what is checked > out onto the actual site, so all "final version" files need to go > in there unless you want to create a new checkout. I guess I just object to 'docs' being part of the directory names; overloading 'documents' and 'documentation', particularly when the httpd docco is in the /docs/ and /docs-2.0/ Web locations. -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar, Sanagendamgagwedweinini http://Golux.Com/coar/ Author, developer, opinionist http://Apache-Server.Com/ "Millennium hand and shrimp!"