* Rich Bowen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -----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.
This was voted some time ago: http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/httpd-docs-2.0/STATUS?r1=1.71&r2=1.72&diff_format=h (which doesn't mean, of course, that it could not be discussed further ;) > How about ... > > /docs-stable/ -- Current released version (2.0 now) > /docs-dev/ -- Current development version (2.1 now)j [...] I think, stable URLs (with version numbers) are better here, because there are many references out there, which would break otherwise. A compromise could be to add such URLs as placeholders (i.e. redirects) to the appropriate docs directory, but I don't see much sense in this. nd -- "Die Untergeschosse der Sempergalerie bleiben w�hrenddessen aus statistischen Gr�nden geflutet." -- Spiegel Online --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
