James A Sutherland wrote: > > > Putting a burden on the process of packaging the software for > > distribution, solely so some files can be renamed. For this > > reason and the effect on the repository, -1. > > I never suggested a vote on the issue;
That's not a vote, it's a veto. > you actually said that this is already done: "the documentation > is packaged as part of the Apache distribution, with the SSIs > statically 'compiled'". So foo.html looks the same whether you're looking at it on the Apache site, a mirror, or your local installation, whether the result is being produced with SSIs (the former two) or not (the latter). > You've also missed the point completely - "solely so some files can > be renamed"?! Renaming some of the files was part of the proposed > method, not one of the aims. Chris wrote: > Don't know, but if we do the switch by hand, I'd like to use > .shtml or something instead of the .html to make headers & footers > easier to distinguish. This may also make it easier to do the change > over time -- header.shtml can be the newer larger header, and any > hits on header.html in *.html are old files to fix. Perhaps I did miss the point. In which case I don't see what the point actually is here. Chris? > I don't see what you mean about "the effect on the repository", > either: it's a simple change to the HTML files in it. Renaming files inside a repository creates headaches. Lots of headaches. Big ones. Adding new files, as I now understand Chris to be saying, doesn't create headaches, just possibly some confusion. > I accept it involves some extra work in packaging; if the CVS tree > were made available, periodically updated, it would be a simple > "wget" command to "freeze" the documentation for a release. Easily said, since you aren't one of the ones doing the packaging.. :-) > So put a link to a complete server with the docs on. No good. Lots of installations are done off-net or in intranets w/o access. > Or "freeze" the docs from a server with SSI enabled. That's what's essentially done now, except it isn't done through the Web, but by a script. Take a look at the 'how to roll a release' document on dev.apache.org to see how it's currently done. In essence, I don't see any advantages here, and some disadvantages for people who aren't on the docco project. But maybe I'm still missing the point. -- #ken P-)} Ken Coar <http://Golux.Com/coar/> Apache Software Foundation <http://www.apache.org/> "Apache Server for Dummies" <http://Apache-Server.Com/> "Apache Server Unleashed" <http://ApacheUnleashed.Com/>
