Hello, just a grain of salt from an somewhat experienced mod_perl user who switched to Subversion some time ago...
Stas Bekman wrote:
> >> Second, docs/ was placed under modperl/ because like most other >> projects, the convention is to place the website/documentation >> beside trunk/ of the project it matches. It's just a convention. > > > what's the logic behind that convention?
Well, I guess people expect the documentation to vary with the software (e.g. if you want to branch MP2 to provide, say, better support for interpreter multiplicity, you will want to update the docs too because of e.g. new httpd.conf directives).
> >> Third, modperl-2.0 was made into modperl/trunk because it was the >> main development branch. Same reason httpd-2.1 was made into >> httpd/trunk > > > well, 2.0, 2.1 and 2.2 are closely related. mp1 and mp2 have next > to zero relation to each other. I can't see a good reason why the > two should be branches of the same tree.
My opinion is that the "trunk" convention in Subversion is a CVS mimic that only fits a small number of projects with only one main line of development, which obviously mod_perl isn't. But this is the topic of another thread.
> modperl-docs, modperl-2.0 and modperl-1.0 are 3 unrelated projects
Really? I for one believe that the docs would be of better overall quality if they were maintained at the same time as the rest of the tree. On smaller-scale CPAN modules, I've found that insisting that contributors provide patches for all three of code, tests and docs results in a vastly more useable distribution.
-- << Tout n'y est pas parfait, mais on y honore certainement les jardiniers >>
Dominique Quatravaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
