httpd-docs mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com>
Subject Re: Documentation URLs
Date Sat, 11 Sep 2004 02:02:35 GMT
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, [ISO-8859-15] André Malo wrote:

> * Rich Bowen <rbowen@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > As we hope, maybe, some day soon, to move into the 2.2 branch, and then,
> > some day, 2.4, and so on, we're going to continue to face the challenge
> > of what the URLs for the documentation should be. Having docs-2.0,
> > docs-2.2, docs-2.4, etc, is sucky and not scalable.
> > 
> > It seems that each time we discuss this, the discussion doesn't reach
> > any real conclusions. Or at least, I haven't seen any yet. If I missed
> > something, feel free to point me at the archives. I just kinda feel that
> > we need to figure out something in advance, rather than being reactive
> > when the time comes.
> 
> This was voted some time ago:
> http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd-docs-2.0/STATUS?r1=1.71&r2=1.72&diff_format=h
> 
> (which doesn't mean, of course, that it could not be discussed further ;)
> 
> > How about ...
> > 
> > /docs-stable/  -- Current released version (2.0 now)
> > /docs-dev/     -- Current development version (2.1 now)j
> [...]
> 
> I think, stable URLs (with version numbers) are better here, because there are
> many references out there, which would break otherwise.
> 
> A compromise could be to add such URLs as placeholders (i.e. redirects) to
> the appropriate docs directory, but I don't see much sense in this.

What primarily bugs me is two things:
1) That /docs/ is the 1.3 documentation, while we're trying to present a
message that 2.0 is the Right Thing To Use.

If the canonical documentation URL "/docs/" points to 1.3, then
*obviously* 1.3 must be the recommended version. 

2) That we'll end up with a progressively larger number of documentation
trees that will have to be maintained.

It's already a pain to patch the 2.0 and 2.1 docs. What will it be like
by version 2.24?

That's the sense in it. At least from my perspective. Having /docs/
point to the current (2.0) docs, and having ErrorDocument 404's to
handle URLs that are no longer valid in the 2.0 docs, seems to
completely handle the "breaks links" issue.

Anyways, I'm content to drop it if that's really the consensus. It seems
to me, however, that linking /docs/ to the 1.3 docs for all time
henceforth is not the right decision.

-- 
My girl came to the study and said Help me;
I told her I had a time problem which meant:
I would die for you but I don't have ten minutes.
    Time Problem -- Brenda Hillman

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


Mime
View raw message