perl-docs-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stas Bekman <>
Subject Re: People behind mod_perl and question about 2.0 docs
Date Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:34:33 GMT
Per Einar Ellefsen wrote:
> At 16:20 18.04.2002, Stas Bekman wrote:
>> Per Einar Ellefsen wrote:
>>> - For the "People behind mod_perl" section, who should be mentioned? 
>>> Doug is a given, Stas too, but I guess there are so many more I don't 
>>> know about.. From the top of my head, I'd say Eric Cholet, Ask Bjørn 
>>> Hansen (?) .... I'm not really sure.
>>> We'll need pictures (I found some from the mod_perl BOF, but maybe 
>>> they aren't very representative), and descriptions (like how he came 
>>> to mod_perl, what he does, etc..). Maybe if those who consider 
>>> themselves fit to appear in that section could contribute some info 
>>> about themselves?
>> I think this is too dangerous. How are you going to decide who has 
>> contributed enough to be included in the venerable list of those 
>> "behind mod_perl". Somebody will feel left out and it's a pity.
>> I suggest we simply say developed by Doug MacEachern with help from 
>> numerous other developers too many to list here.
> Well, I think it would still be very interesting to have in-depth 
> information about the most active contributors, including an image 
> etc... Gives a more personal look.

sure, sounds good.

>> On the other hand there is this very outdated file: modperl/CREDITS, 
>> which if brought up to date could serve as such a document. Here you 
>> don't have a problem, you list everybody who has helped, and give some 
>> more description to those who has contibuted significantly more.
> Yes, I saw this. I'll try and see what I can do with it.
> Maybe have like an index page that lists all the authors, with links, 
> and then for the pages of the most significant ones, more information 
> with picture, several paragraphs, etc.

ok, the real problem will be to keep it up to date, but I guess it's not 
really an issue.

>>> - About the 2.0 docs: should they be edited in-place or is there 
>>> somewhere else they should be taken from (i.e. is this the main 
>>> repository for them or is it the modperl-2.0 one?)
>> It's very simple, when you checkout modperl-2.0 
>> modperl-docs/src/docs/2.0 are
>> checked out as modperl-2.0/docs, so they are the same docs. Very cool 
>> IMHO. One
>> source, zero hassle.
>> We should do the same for 1.0.
> Well, as far as I can see, most of the 1.0 documentation is going stale 
> anyway, so it shouldn't be that much of an issue. Most changes for 1.0 
> happen in the Guide anyway by now.

Actually I'm not working on the guide anymore, unless I get fixes and 
improvements. To me all the 1.0 docs are frozen, since I've enough work 
on the 2.0 front :)

I'm working on your huge patches now, Per Einar :)

>> How does this work? This is a cvs magick:
>> % cat CVSROOT/modules
>> apachetest-alias   -d Apache-Test httpd-test/perl-framework/Apache-Test
>> modperl-docs-alias -d docs modperl-docs/src/docs/2.0/
>> modperl-2.0        modperl-2.0 &apachetest-alias &modperl-docs-alias
> Oh ok, great then! But this means I'll have to watch myself a little :) 
> Anyway, really great.

it is great! As good as it gets :)

Stas Bekman            JAm_pH ------> Just Another mod_perl Hacker     mod_perl Guide --->

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

View raw message