On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
one question we should rethink is whether to have docs in their own
modperl-2.0-docs cvs tree on all in a modperl-2.0/docs subdirectory.
i'm pretty sure cvs allows access control so certain people can write to
docs/ but not ../
the other reason
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
whenever. of course, then we have the problem of docs
containing docs based on the code in cvs, not the
current release of modperl.
yeah, i think that's the worst outcome.
i have the opposite feeling, docs interspersed amongst
subs drives me
one question we should rethink is whether to have docs in their own
modperl-2.0-docs cvs tree on all in a modperl-2.0/docs subdirectory.
i'm pretty sure cvs allows access control so certain people can write to
docs/ but not ../
the other reason for the split is if we want to release docs more
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
one question we should rethink is whether to have docs in their own
modperl-2.0-docs cvs tree on all in a modperl-2.0/docs subdirectory.
i'm pretty sure cvs allows access control so certain people can write to
docs/ but not ../
I think it's just
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
i'm pretty sure cvs allows access control so certain
people can write to docs/ but not ../
it doesn't actually; you have to rely on unix permissions.
would you really trust somebody to write docs that you
wouldn't trust to write code? i wouldn't.
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, brian moseley wrote:
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Doug MacEachern wrote:
i'm pretty sure cvs allows access control so certain
people can write to docs/ but not ../
it doesn't actually; you have to rely on unix permissions.
would you really trust somebody to write docs that
