On 02/22/2018 01:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Luca Toscano <toscano.l...@gmail.com> wrote:

does this mean also removing the doc pages? If so I'd be a little bit
concerned, there are still a lot of people using 2.2 and even not-up-to-date
documentation is still better than nothing. Maybe we could send an email to
users@ to announce this beforehand?

We've long published 1.3 and 2.0 docs after the 2.4 launch. There's no
reason to drop 2.2 docs from the website entirely at this time. It is
a question whether the 2.2 docs are maintained, or simply kept
available in final form?

Are you seeking to keep httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/ open for
revision? There need to be three project members willing to maintain
and review each others changes, or it is now time to simply close the
branch to most edits.


I've been away for a bit, so I probably lack context here.

We didn't close the 1.3 docs to edit until ... well, they can still be edited, although it's been years since anyone has.

We should keep the 2.2 docs online, for sure. Making them continue to be updated is fine - they still have typos and broken links in them that need to be fixed.

The 1.3 and 2.0 docs died due to lack of interest, not due to policy. And, at some point (like after the 2.6 release, for example) we'll want to go back and add some rel canonical stuff in the headers to point to the newest version.

I'm just saying that I think it's fine to let them die a natural death, rather than killing them by policy.

Reply via email to