> > Is http://james.apache.org/index.html using pages generated from > > the correct version of the xdocs?
As Danny said, we'll be separating the site docs into its own repository. > As a quick fix, how about updating the docs. in the CVS head so that the > documentation link on the main page reads "Latest Development Version" > rather than "James 2.1 documentation" Actually, those docs SHOULD be for James v2.1. The only ones that should be off-kilter are the javadocs. Are you seeing anything else that seems out of synch? > Ultimately, I too think it would probably be a better idea to have > the docs for the current stable version. Anyone who wants to help re-org the web site is welcome to help. :-) --- Noel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]