httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
Subject Re: htdocs?
Date Sun, 19 Nov 2000 01:28:37 GMT

> I know you're trying to make a point that developers aren't writing docs.
> But it is just moot. Whether developers do or not, or whether they download
> it or not, is not the issue.
> The split has encouraged much more doc writing than there ever was. This is
> Goodness. Mucking with the organization of htdocs is NOT going to change who
> or how much contribution occurs.

The split had nothing to do with encouraging people to contribute
docs.  What encouraged people to write docs was opening the docs to more
people.  The split was how we accomplished that.  There have been two
people (Roy and Marc) who have said the split was unnecessary.  It is
possible to open the htdocs directory to more people without the split
according to them.  I have just started playing with CVS, so I am the
wrong person to be arguing how to do it.  I just want to be able to work
on docs without any more hassle.

I have no problem opening the htdocs to more people, hell I'm all for
it.  I do have a problem with the mechanism chosen to do that, if it
causes these kinds of problems.

> > You won't see them in apache-2.0/htdocs.  The problem is the &htdocs-2.0
> > in the modules file.
> Okay. If that is the problem, then why is it still in there?

Because not having it there was veto'ed a while ago.  I believe it was
Marc who veto'ed it back then, but I'd have to check the archives to be
sure.  Unfortunately our archives haven't worked for a long time so that
is much harder to do.  I'll try to find the veto later tonight.

In other words what we have is a broken repository with two vetos.  One
from a while ago forces the &htdocs in the modules file.  The other keeps
us from fixing the problem another way.  :-(

> > You won't find that file.  But, if you check out the htdocs directory
> > yourself, it's there.  If after you do a checkout, you go into the htdocs
> > directory and do a cvs update, you will get a lot of errors as well.
> If the &htdocs-2.0 is not doing what it should, then punt the damn thing.

Can't.  The veto process forbids it.

> You can't blame the break on the split if it is caused by problems with
> interpreting the modules file!

Yes I can.  The split was the wrong solution to the problem.  Marc
outlined in MANY e-mails a less destructive way to get the same result,
but we split the repositories anyway.

> We have a repro case. Cool. A quick persual of a CVS FAQ would probably turn
> up the answer.
> If that is the case, then we do one of two things:
> 1) tell people to only check out the subdir rather than the parent
> 2) put a file in there
> Personally, I don't know why there is a subdir in the first place. If we
> always skip the parent dir, then what's the point?

That's a part of the problem.  We don't always skip the parent dir.  The
parent dir has more information in it.  I don't understand why the
instructions were to only check out the htdocs directory, because the API
docs are at the same level as the htdocs.

> > > 2) checking out httpd-docs-2.0 directory doesn't work. easy resolution:
> > >    check out httpd-docs-2.0/htdocs
> > 
> > Checking out the whole repository does work.  However you can't check it
> > out in your development tree and still update the tree.
> Because of the EmptyDir thing? Okay. Let's find out why that happens?
> It seems a bit silly to revise our CVS repository strategy to fix EmptyDir
> before we even know the true *cause* of EmptyDir.
> And your two sentences seem inconsistent. Checking out the whole repository
> obviously doesn't work, if you can't update your tree.

Have you tried checking out the whole repo?  It works just fine and that
directory will continue to work.  It has two subdirs, apidoc and
htdocs.  The problem ONLY occurs when the whole repo is checked out into
the apache source tree.  Those are two completely different cases.  The
repo works just fine; it doesn't interact well with the source repo.

> > They have been delete from Apache, however the modules file has us
> > checking them out anyway.  We tried removing this once, and that was
> > veto'ed, because people said that developers need to actually download the
> > docs.  I happen to agree that forcing developers to download the docs is
> > 100% correct.  However, currently we force developers to download partial
> > docs only, which is completely bogus.
> If the feature doesn't work, and it gets in the way of developers who *do*
> want to download docs... then it should be axed.

Get the damn veto removed then.

> The answer is to fix the modules file. Not to muck with the split.
> I'd say that the people to veto removing that line were effectively saying
> "please don't fix things. I want my htdocs to continue breaking."

The answer is to fix the problem.  I don't care how it is done, I just
want it done.  You want more people to be able to work on the docs, so do
I.  Marc wants the htdocs directory checked out for him, so do I.  Marc
and Roy have both said both are possible, but it is easier with a
different layout.

I'm not trying to be a PITA, I just want to be able to get more done, and
right now our CVS repository layout is getting in the way of that.  :-(


Ryan Bloom               
406 29th St.
San Francisco, CA 94131

View raw message