cvs commit: httpd-docs-1.3/htdocs/manual LICENSE index.html

coar00/10/09 11:34:21 Modified:htdocs/manual LICENSE index.html Log: People looking for the licence shouldn't be trying to find it here.. but if they do, let's see that they get the current one. Revision ChangesPath 1.8 +39 -40httpd-doc

reorg of ALL docs

So, what this discussion has pointed out to me is that, as usual, I am wrong ;-) I still think that, for the short term, the right thing to do is to commit the by-type core.html index and remove the alpha one. However, in the long term, the modules docs (including core.html) should be a reference

Re: reorg of core.html

(Incidentally, no need to copy me on posts to the list. I will read them there, eventually.) On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Chris Pepper wrote: > Sorry -- I had forgotten that there are currently two alpha > lists of directives. Yes, two alpha and one grouped would be silly > (even more silly than

cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/include util_filter.h

trawick 00/10/09 10:39:10 Modified:src/include util_filter.h Log: Remove stray semicolon from AP_NOBODY_READ and AP_NOBODY_WROTE decls. Remove some out-of-date ap_pass_brigade() doc. Tweak the ap_get_brigade() doc a little. Revision ChangesPath 1.24 +3 -13 ap

Re: reorg of core.html

At 8:59 AM -0700 2000/10/09, Joshua Slive wrote: On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Chris Pepper wrote: I like the new organization, but think the alpha listing is also worthwhile. Why? What does it offer that directives.html does not? (ie. In what circumstances would someone have to spend a non-trivial

Re: reorg of core.html

On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Chris Pepper wrote: > I like the new organization, but think the alpha listing is > also worthwhile. Why? What does it offer that directives.html does not? (ie. In what circumstances would someone have to spend a non-trivial amount of extra time searching for someth

Re: reorg of core.html

On Mon, 9 Oct 2000, Raymond S Brand wrote: > Its nice but please keep the alphabetical index also. > Raymond, don't take this the wrong way, but every contribution that I have seen you make to this list so far has been a conservative one. Several times when I have proposed to remove something

Re: reorg of core.html

At 11:31 AM -0400 2000/10/09, Raymond S Brand wrote: Its nice but please keep the alphabetical index also. Raymond S Brand Joshua Slive wrote: > Attached is a reorganization of the directives section in core.html. It sorts directives first by purpose, and then alphabetically. This does not

Re: reorg of core.html

Its nice but please keep the alphabetical index also. Raymond S Brand Joshua Slive wrote: > > I realize I'm going to get the reputation of someone who just likes to > sort everything, but > > Attached is a reorganization of the directives section in core.html. It > sorts directive

cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/include httpd.h

rbb 00/10/09 07:15:33 Modified:src/include httpd.h Log: Update some docs httpd.h Revision ChangesPath 1.96 +29 -11apache-2.0/src/include/httpd.h Index: httpd.h === RCS file: /home/cvs/ap

cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/lib/apr/include apr_dso.h apr_general.h apr_getopt.h

rbb 00/10/09 07:07:55 Modified:src/lib/apr/include apr_dso.h apr_general.h apr_getopt.h Log: Add some docs to APR. Revision ChangesPath 1.22 +1 -1 apache-2.0/src/lib/apr/include/apr_dso.h Index: apr_dso.h ==

[Fwd: hello!]

Unearthed from beneath an avalanche of old mail.. not acked. I'm tapped out at the moment; anyone care to contact him and invite him to join the docs project for translating other things? -- #kenP-)} Ken Coar Apache Software Foundation

cvs commit: apache-2.0/src/include httpd.h

rbb 00/10/08 17:34:41 Modified:src CHANGES Log: Update the CHANGES file for 2.0a8 Revision ChangesPath 1.261 +2 -0 apache-2.0/src/CHANGES Index: CHANGES === RCS file: /home/cvs/apac