Mailing-List: contact docs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: docs@httpd.apache.org
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2002 15:15:21 -0700
From: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@apache.org>
Reply-To: Justin Erenkrantz <jerenkrantz@apache.org>
To: docs@httpd.apache.org, dev@httpd.apache.org
Subject: Re: Auth: Start the httpd-2.1 branch finally?
Message-ID: <2147483647.1034522121@[10.0.1.11]>
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20021013164701.02d82cf8@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
References: <20021013035934.C8309@lyra.org>
 <20021012201752.GF4179@clove.org>
 <JHEPKCEMGPKFFDHHDDKDEENCFKAA.bill@wstoddard.com>
 <20021013035934.C8309@lyra.org>
 <5.1.0.14.2.20021013164701.02d82cf8@pop3.rowe-clan.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

--On Sunday, October 13, 2002 4:57 PM -0500 "William A. Rowe, Jr." 
<wrowe@apache.org> wrote:

> I challenge you to do so; document both the old and the new so that
>
>    http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/
>
> clearly documents both the pre-new-auth and post-new-auth.  I'm
> presuming it can't be done -well-, because it hasn't been done.  I
> grappled with the idea this weekend and surrendered.  That's when I
> revisited my original vote to  implement this in 2.1 ... like
> FirstBill offered, I too should have hollered louder. But no users
> have been harmed, and the code will go in (to 2.0 or 2.1).

I'm sorry, but I don't see a need to have the documentation refer to 
historical (or deprecated) modules.  If you have an older version, 
the docs included in that release tarball are the definitive version. 
IMHO, the docs on the website should only refer to the currently 
released version.  -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org