> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Rich Bowen [mailto:rbo...@rcbowen.com] > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. März 2018 21:11 > An: firstname.lastname@example.org > Betreff: Re: [POLL] Final status of 2.2.x branch > > > 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.
+1 Regards Rüdiger