httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Greg Stein <>
Subject Re: Web server docs proposal (take n)
Date Tue, 30 May 2000 00:23:56 GMT
On Mon, 29 May 2000, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> What:
> I propose to create new CVS modules on the Apache system,
> and move the existing server documentation into them and out
> from under the source modules.


> How:
> I propose that two new modules, httpd-docs-1.3 and httpd-docs-2.0,
> be created.  The current src/htdocs/ directory trees in the apache-1.3
> and apache-2.0 CVS modules, and the apidoc/ tree in the apache-devsite
> module, would be tagged, and then the files in those trees either
> copied or moved to the appropriate httpd-docs-* tree.

Copied. They must continue to exist in the old locations so that we can
rebuild releases based on previous tags.

Personally, I'd "cvs add" copies of the HEAD of these areas, with a
checkin comment pointing to their old location. But if the choice is going
to be copy or move... take copy.

> I suggest
> that the address to which CVS updates are sent should include both
> the apache-docs list and the apache-cvs list,


> At some point the htdocs/ subtrees would be removed from the
> source trees.  That can either be immediate or happen sometime

"cvs delete" immediately.

They can't be physically deleted because of the "build old release" issue.
And since they are not physically deleted, then we can always recover in
case something truly does go wrong.

I suggest immediately so that we don't get commits to the wrong location.

> o Why two modules rather than one with branches?  For simplicity and
>   for parity with the source trees whose contents they track.


> o Why the "httpd-" module names instead of "apache-"?  Because
>   'Apache' now means a lot more than just the Web server project,
>   and 'httpd' has been selected as the name of that project itself.
>   Whether the existing 'apache-*' modules will get renamed to
>   'httpd-*', or will remain with their current legacy names, is
>   a separate issue -- but new modules should, I think, follow the
>   now-current naming conventions.


> o Why separate modules rather than finding a way to let these
>   docco-only people work only in the htdocs/ subtree?  Because of
>   the mailing list issue, because this is how we've historically
>   managed disjoint committer lists, because this is how other
>   ASF projects seem to be handling subprojects, and because this
>   doesn't require futzing with the CVS scripts that affect *all*
>   of the ASF projects.



Greg Stein,

View raw message