httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian Behlendorf <>
Subject Re: New CVS module for docco
Date Thu, 14 Oct 1999 09:40:22 GMT

Yes, this is a larger issue, one well worth discussing.  The HTTP server
project needs some way to distinguish itself other than just "Apache".
"Apache HTTP Server" is fine, and probably most appropriate.  Here are the

a) Just as we have,, and soon more, we
will have an  

b) There'll be a web site rooted at

c) This mailing list will move to something like "" or
"", with module-specific lists as well.

d) The module naming structure for ASF projects should be the
projectname-modulename.  E.g., we have jakarta-tomcat, jakarta-check,
jakarta-tools.  So I'd expect over time to move to httpd-1.2, httpd-1.3,
httpd-2.0, httpd-site, etc.

Again, I'm fine with 'httpd'.  Now is the time to debate alternatives,


On Tue, 12 Oct 1999, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> All right, it looks like there's sufficient support for this
> to move forward.  Before I make the CVS modules and move
> things around, though, the question arises: should they be
> named using "http[d]" or "apache"?  The Apache HTTP Server
> project is now just one of those under the Apache Software
> Foundation umbrella and supported by the ASF infrastructure
> (including the CVS repository machine).
> It seems as though
> a) the API docs should be considered part of the server
>    documentation, and
> b) the version-specific documentation should be kept
>    separate, and
> c) all the documentation should be under one module.
> This would lead to a structure something like
>  httpd-docs/
>    1.3/     (current server docs go here)
>      API/   (current apache-devsite/apidoc/ goes here)
>    2.0/
>      API/
> The question I'm asking whether the top level should be named
> "httpd-docs" or "apache-docs"?  Given that the name Apache now
> means more than just the Web server, I'm in favour of the former.
> However, that would put it at odds with the existing module
> names (apache-1.3, apache-2.0, et cetera).
> Opinions?

View raw message