This is a last call for objections to the new-style FAQ referenced below.
I am going to commit if I don't hear anything.
In addition consider this a plea for advice on what the categories should
look like and what questions should be brought over. If I don't get
feedback, I'm just going to use m
On Tue, 22 May 2001, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> So I'm putting in the animated 2.0 (slightly smaller than the non-animated
> for some goofy reason) tonight unless I see a veto, in which case the
> non-animated 2.0 branded logo will go in.
>
I vote non-animated (but I don't veto the other one).
Was: Too gaudy to consider :-?
Ok, calling the question;
For animated:
Chris Pepper
Andrew Meija [who would like us to drop the archaic ed style.]
Rawslyn Ruffin [who thinks we need a makeover as well.]
Ambigious:
Dmitry [who thinks apache-docs has something to do with release binar
