Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.7.6/V2.0) id JAA08237; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 09:52:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from pillar.elsevier.co.uk by taz.hyperreal.com (8.7.6/V2.0) with ESMTP id JAA08229; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 09:52:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from snowdon.elsevier.co.uk (snowdon.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.164]) by pillar.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.2/8.8.2) with ESMTP id RAA00611 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:52:26 GMT Received: from cadair.elsevier.co.uk by snowdon.elsevier.co.uk with SMTP (PP); Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:52:00 +0000 Received: from tees.elsevier.co.uk (tees.elsevier.co.uk [193.131.197.60]) by cadair.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.2/8.8.0) with ESMTP id RAA13973 for ; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:51:51 GMT Received: (from dpr@localhost) by tees.elsevier.co.uk (8.8.2/8.8.0) id RAA23407; Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:50:46 GMT To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Subject: Re: Documentation References: From: Paul Richards Date: 04 Nov 1996 17:50:45 +0000 In-Reply-To: Alexei Kosut's message of Fri, 1 Nov 1996 20:10:55 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <57sp6ppx56.fsf@tees.elsevier.co.uk> Lines: 57 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.30 Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Alexei Kosut writes: > No, it is very much not redundant. Nothing is. 1.0 contains the old > Apache 1.0 docs. The top-level /docs/ directory contains the Apache > 1.1 docs, 1.1 contains the whats-new-in-Apache 1.1 docs, 1.2 contains > the whats-new-in-Apache 1.2 docs. When Apache 1.2 goes from beta to > final, the top-level will change to contain complete 1.2 docs, and the > existing 1.1 docs will be shunted into docs/1.1 (I don't know what > will happen with the existing docs/1.1 - I never really thought about > it at the time). I'm sure I commented on this some time ago but I obviously didn't shout loud enough. The apache-docs cvs tree is already a mess and we haven't started yet. This is definately not the way to use cvs to your advantage. The 1.0 docs should have been commited into the /docs directory first and then it should have been tagged. The 1.1 docs should then have been overlayed and committed with a new tag. Likewise for 1.2. once the initial commit of our current docs are done then things would proceed as follows. There are doc tags that are in sync with the releases, i.e. when the src gets tagged for a release then that tag is placed on the docs as well. When a release takes place the doc tree is branched the same as the main tree. The last release is tarred up and released (including the docs I'd hope) and then development takes place on the head, including working on the docs. Updates of the live web site can be done in a few ways. You can update the web site every x hours by doing an export or you can do an export by hand when the docs seem to have changed enough. On the web site you maintain multiple directories for each version so all the docs for each release are available on the web server. You check out into those directories using the tags that were placed on the cvs tree. This works well, you have a single lineage of the docs in cvs, at release time the taggin/branching works as it does for the sources and you can keep all the docs for old versions available online without any problems. > One note - the CVS messages for manuals/ should most defenitely be > sent to apache-docs instead of (or at least as well as) apache-cvs. I > see no reason for the docs-only people (well... person) on apache-docs > to have to suffer through all the source-related CVS updates simply to > get the docs-related ones. This is a good idea, we do this for FreeBSD, if I get free time before Ben does I'll look into it. -- 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