-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 As we hope, maybe, some day soon, to move into the 2.2 branch, and then, some day, 2.4, and so on, we're going to continue to face the challenge of what the URLs for the documentation should be. Having docs-2.0, docs-2.2, docs-2.4, etc, is sucky and not scalable.
It seems that each time we discuss this, the discussion doesn't reach any real conclusions. Or at least, I haven't seen any yet. If I missed something, feel free to point me at the archives. I just kinda feel that we need to figure out something in advance, rather than being reactive when the time comes. How about ... /docs-stable/ -- Current released version (2.0 now) /docs-dev/ -- Current development version (2.1 now)j And, maybe /docs-legacy/ -- Recently supplanted version. Maybe. But I'm not sure if/why we need that. I suspect that /docs/ will forever point at the 1.3 docs, and that would be unfortunate. It would be very nice (imho) if we could all just say backward compatibility be damned, point /docs/ at the 2.current docs, and put in a ErrorDocument 404 for those URLs that don't have an equivalent doc in the current documentation. Then /docs-1.3/ could point to the 1.3 docs for all time, and the rest of the documentation can move on. I don't know what CVS/SVN magic would be necessary to make this happen, but I do know that maintaining 3 versions of the docs is plenty painful enough, and I'm not anxious for it to get worse with each rev of the code. Thoughts? - -- Unix - Twice the power, and none of the subtlety -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBQgtUXP03+sx4yJMRAkOIAKCPFdo/6rmZ1yJj1GQUKceSG/BoZwCgwJG/ xoyhweDfKn1cZ88PrexGPgI= =hWhk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
