On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 08:25:53PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> As an advisory, I'd be *really* against separating them out like 1.3. I've
> been really aggravated by that separation. Yes, the 2.x docs and source
> now have two separate build systems, but I honestly don't think it is a big
> deal for developers - it enforces that the docs and code represent the
> 'same' version.
Agreed. But if bandwidth is a major issue, this is one way to use a bit
less.
>
> As a question, how would we deal with the branches to represent
> stable/unstable if we have separate source repositories for the doc and
> source? By keeping them in the same repository, it's trivial.
>
Yes, it is doable with a split, but certainly simpler to keep the docs
where they are.
> I'd also say that separating out the docs into language packs doesn't seem
> right either as there should only be one release tarball. Having to sign
> and produce 20 or 30 'releases' (even if some are merely snapshots of the
> docs) would be confusing to both users and the poor RMs. -- justin
>
Yeah, that would be a pain. A less radical approach could be to have the
base version with english only and then an optional language pack containing
all others.
Personally I like what we have now. Being able to read the docs without
a running Apache would be a plus, but that's about the only thing I'd
want to change.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
`Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
|