Perhaps we want to restore 2.0 as well as 1.3 with an (obsolete) or (historical) tag, and reverse the list for completeness?
Alternately, remove 1.3 and 2.0 altogether? Each represents about 1% of total httpd deployments, and suggest those deployments are rather abandoned anyways, so the value of docs pages is largely for historic research, which is already available from svn history. On Feb 21, 2018 15:47, <[email protected]> wrote: > Author: wrowe > Date: Wed Feb 21 21:47:28 2018 > New Revision: 1825010 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1825010&view=rev > Log: > This appears to be significantly out of date, if we meant for a legacy 2.0 > ref, we would want a legacy 1.3 ref. > > Modified: > httpd/site/trunk/content/docs/index.mdtext > > Modified: httpd/site/trunk/content/docs/index.mdtext > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/site/trunk/content/docs/ > index.mdtext?rev=1825010&r1=1825009&r2=1825010&view=diff > ============================================================ > ================== > --- httpd/site/trunk/content/docs/index.mdtext (original) > +++ httpd/site/trunk/content/docs/index.mdtext Wed Feb 21 21:47:28 2018 > @@ -24,11 +24,9 @@ our [distribution > mirrors](http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.lua/httpd/docs/). Online > browsable documentation is also available: > > -- [Version 2.4](2.4/) > +- [Version 2.4](2.4/) ([Current](current/)) > > -- [Version 2.2](2.2/) > - > -- [Version 2.0](2.0/) (Legacy) > +- [Version 2.2](2.2/) (End Of Life) > > - [Trunk](trunk/) (development version) > > > >
