To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com
Subject: Re: cvs commit: apache/docs/unref/changelog v0.4.html
References: <Pine.HPP.3.95.961117222242.13444A-100000@ace.nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us>
From: Paul Richards <p.richards@elsevier.co.uk>
Date: 18 Nov 1996 16:04:23 +0000
In-Reply-To: Alexei Kosut's message of Sun, 17 Nov 1996 22:35:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <574tinv188.fsf@tees.elsevier.co.uk>
Lines: 50
Sender: new-httpd-owner@apache.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com

Alexei Kosut <akosut@nueva.pvt.k12.ca.us> writes:

> There are at least three arguments, in order of increasing importance:
> 
> 1. Some people need to work on the docs, but not the source. As you
> point out, this is easily done in CVS.
> 
> 2. Some people (possibly most) want to work on the source, but not the
> docs. For anyone on a slow Net connection (like me), or who uses the
> from-cvs snapshots, the extra baggage of the docs is just a
> pain. There is no easy way to fix this in CVS.

So is this. In fact, I've been getting just the src directory back to
my local box.

> 3. The two are not developed in parallel, as much as it seems they
> are. The Apache 1.1 docs are not done exactly at the same time as the
> Apache 1.1 source. So a "cvs tag APACHE_1_2_0" done in the root Apache
> directory (as is neccessary) will add that tag to the docs, which may
> make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Paul, you yourself used a
> seperate DOCS_* tag. Making seperate modules make a whole heck of a
> lot more sense.

They should be developed in parallel. Why would they not be? I used a
separate DOCS tag because it would have been wrong to retrospectively
put files on the release tags since those files were not in those
releases.

> 4. It was already vetoed. Therefore, in order to make that change, you
> needed, procedurally, to either get me to reverse my veto, or convince
> the rest of the group I was certifiably insane for vetoing it (as per
> http://dev.apache.org/httpd/voting.html). You did neither. You didn't

I didn't remember a veto, I remember some discussion but nothing as
finalised as a veto.

> Further, you did it wrong. All the docs are completely out of
> order and screwed up, and because you didn't branch them, we can't
> even go back and fix the 1.0/1.1 docs. If you're going to mess with
> the docs (and I actually support, in theory, what you were doing with
> CVS), you might as well get it right.

Branching them wouldn't make any difference. The idea of branching and
checking out old copies wasn't a very good one in retrospect.

-- 
  Paul Richards. Originative Solutions Ltd.  (Netcraft Ltd. contractor)
  Elsevier Science TIS online journal project.
  Email: p.richards@elsevier.co.uk
  Phone: 0370 462071 (Mobile), +44 (0)1865 843155