James A Sutherland wrote: > > Whatever your reasoning, a veto was premature. You vetoed an idea > you thought might be under discussion, before asking what was > being proposed.
Wrong. You apparently don't understand how the veto process works. I was mistaken, but not premature. > > > much for everyone else, I would be quite happy to do the packaging > > > myself... > > > > Um, I'm talking about packaging the entire Apache distribution, > > not just the docs. > > So was I. Now who's being premature? :-) > OK, we'll all go back to running CERN httpd. Functionally speaking, > none of the docs are "broke" - so why "fix" them? Just write-protect > the tree and leave the docs as they are... Well, I guess you only like adages if you voice them. :-/ > Except the current contents of header.html aren't the header we > want, or structured in the way needed. Changing the contents of > header.html would break every page in docs ATM; putting the new > header in a new file allows for a gradual changeover. *Now* the concept makes sense. Looking back through this thread, this is the most clearly (by far) that it's been described. -- #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/>
