On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Chris Pepper wrote:
> At 10:05 PM -0700 2001/06/23, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> >- Tutorial on user authentication with Apache. Rich Bowen has contributed
> >his tutorial from ApacheToday, but it needs to be cleaned up and put in
> >a good format for the docs. I can dig it up if
On Sat, 30 Jun 2001, Joshua Slive wrote:
> > > - Tutorial on "log files in apache"
> >
> > Forgive me, but aren't there several articles (seemingly all offsite) off
> > misc/tutorials.html?
> >
>
> Right. The offsite tutorials are quite good. There could be an argument
> made that we don't reall
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Jason Lingohr wrote:
> I think it may be wise to get ideas and start writing a new STATUS, so that
> things are laid out and we have a rough project plan.
Sure. Sounds like a great idea.
>
> > - Tutorial on "log files in apache"
>
> Forgive me, but aren't there several arti
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:05:43PM -0700, Joshua Slive wrote:
> Yah, now that the STATUS is pruned, I guess it would be good to start
> adding stuff back into it. I have a few ideas, and I'm sure that there
> are many others.
I think it may be wise to get ideas and start writing a new STATUS, so
At 10:05 PM -0700 2001/06/23, Joshua Slive wrote:
- Tutorial on user authentication with Apache. Rich Bowen has contributed
his tutorial from ApacheToday, but it needs to be cleaned up and put in
a good format for the docs. I can dig it up if anyone wants to do this.
I'll do that. I don't think
Just while I spotted it...
On Sat, Jun 23, 2001 at 10:05:43PM -0700, Joshua Slive wrote:
> In general, things that I can think of that could use doing include:
[ ... snip ... ]
- On quick glance, a lot of the HTML in (at least) htdocs/manual has
uppercase tags -- to meet with the
[targeting this back at the list...]
On Sun, 24 Jun 2001, Jason Lingohr wrote:
> Excuse my stupidity, but I'm now wondering again what, if anything, needs
> to be done with 1.3 (excepting translations)? I've read the discussions
> and whatnot, but it would seem we're back at the stage of your re
[whoops, this was meant for the list]
On Sat, 23 Jun 2001, Jason Lingohr wrote:
>
> Alrighty -- so I'm ok to go ahead and add the troff man's to the root of
> the tree, as it is with 2.0?
Hmmm I don't think so. I think the conclusion from Ken and me is
that we shouldn't be moving around the
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 08:53:50AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Actually, the HTML versions are already there, which is why I assumed that
> this STATUS item referred to the troff versions. Perhaps we have hit the
> source of the original confusion here.
>
> I am in full agreement with the
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> I do not think the STATUS item refers to moving them, but to
> getting their HTML representation into the HTML docco tree.
> Which can be done as an addition w/o requiring any breakage to
> existing stuff. It would not be good to *move* them, b
Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> My opinion is that we should just leave this as-is in 1.3. 1.3 is in
> "maintenance mode" at the moment, so major changes are strongly
> discouraged.
Au contraire. It is in maintenance mode only because everyone's
attention has shifted to 2.0. If there is a commmunity d
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Jason Lingohr wrote:
> Joshua asked me to mail the list with anything missing... from the 1.2
> revision of STATUS:
>
> - man pages
> - The 2.0 documentation tree includes the man pages, but
> for 1.3 they are still only in the src/support directory.
>
My opinion is
Joshua asked me to mail the list with anything missing... from the 1.2
revision of STATUS:
- man pages
- The 2.0 documentation tree includes the man pages, but
for 1.3 they are still only in the src/support directory.
I was going to address this, but have no commit access.
--
---
13 matches
Mail list logo
