* Joshua Slive wrote: > Personally, I'm not too concerned with matching docs releases exactly to > code releases. People can easily use later docs releases with earlier > versions of 2.0, as long as they pay attention to the "compatibility" > notes. So I'd say we just release these whenever we feel like it (but > include the most recent version number to give some idea of time-frame).
I don't have a strong opinion about it. From the user's view it just may be more "naturally" to download a docs offline package for a particular version. (though I'd provide also only the most recent version, of course). By the way, what do you think about localized HTML offline packages? (httpd-docs-x.y.z.$lang.tar.gz)? Creation is probably trivial, because we can adapt concepts/code from the chm creation stuff and build it easily with ant. Would such packages be useful in any way? > 2. We don't want to give the impression that if you want docs, you need to > download them separately. Good point. That's true. > The docs are included with the source (at least > for now; we may want to change that at some point). I would support > putting a link on the main manual index page > http://httpd.apache.org/docs-2.0/ > to the mirror listing > http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/httpd/docs/ Sounds reasonable. Cool suggestion for the link text, anyone? ;-) nd -- > [...] wei� jemand zuf�llig, was der Tag DIV ausgeschrieben bedeutet? DIVerses. Benannt nach all dem unstrukturierten Zeug, was die Leute da so reinpacken und dann absolut positionieren ... -- Florian Hartig und Lars Kasper in dciwam --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
