httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Bowen <>
Subject Re: 1.3 docs
Date Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:52:22 GMT
On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 11:17:32PM -0400, Rich Bowen wrote:
> > What is the general consensus regarding 1.3 docs and keeping them up to
> > date with patches applied to the 2.0 docs? Of course, this would mean a
> > lot of manual patching of the 1.3 docs, as 2.0 patches are sure not to
> > apply automatically.
> Personally, I'd treat the 1.3 docs as closed as the 1.3 source
> tree (i.e. no major changes, just minor problems that are worth
> us fixing and that more than one person cares about).  For instance,
> if someone wants to do a new translation, they'd be far better off
> doing it against the 2.0 docs rather than the 1.3 docs.
> If you want to resync 1.3 against 2.0, I wouldn't stop you.  But,
> I'd think everyone's time would be better of focusing on the quality
> of the 2.0 documentation.  -- justin

OK, just seeking confirmation. That is the mindset that I have moved
into with my last set of patches, and it makes it much easier for
everyone. We might want to make some note to this effect on the
docs-project web site, and/or in the 1.3 docs themselves. I have an
example fetish, and try to make sure that all the docs have examples,
but I'm doing this primarily in the 2.0 docs from here forward, and
folks reading the 1.3 docs are going to miss that. The only place that I
can see this being a problem is with directives that went away 1.3->2.0

And everyone said, "If we only live,
We too will go to sea in a Sieve -
To the hills of the Chankly Bore!"
 (The Jumblies, by Edward Lear)

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message