* Thom May wrote:
>> If we drop the html files from CVS we need more eyes on the online docs and
>> more docco eyes on (pre-)releases. And of course, tons of java code
>> installed on every system that builds from CVS. (need to mention that
>> somewhere in /dev/?)
>>
> Well, having more eyes sounds like a win rather than a problem, to be
> honest.
Ideally, yes. But traditionally the docco eyes aren't focussed very well on
the releases :-) We'd have to change that. (should change that anyway.)
> The requirements for the building the docs would definitely need to be
> better documented - it took me quite a while to find out how to build the
> docs when I was doing my changes to htpasswd recently.
That's probably true...
>> Said that, I'm trusting the build system now and give a +-0 on dropping the
>> generated files - except the generated manpages (these would change their
>> last-modification-data everytime otherwise).
>>
> Hrm, can't we base last-modification-date off the cvs $Id$ string?
There's currently no $Id$ in any httpd file (except STATUS or so). But for
better diffs in generated file it would be considerable (for the *.xml files
in the manual/programs folder), IMHO.
Although ... the generated files depend on various source files: .xml, .xsl
and $lang.xml. Darn.
nd
--
Gefunden auf einer "Webdesigner"-Seite:
> Programmierung in HTML, XML, WML, CGI, FLASH <
# Andr� Malo # http://www.perlig.de/ #
