Re: [POLL] Final status of 2.2.x branch

[Rich Bowen]

On 02/22/2018 01:27 PM, William A Rowe Jr wrote:

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Luca Toscano  wrote:


does this mean also removing the doc pages? If so I'd be a little bit
concerned, there are still a lot of people using 2.2 and even not-up-to-date
documentation is still better than nothing. Maybe we could send an email to
users@ to announce this beforehand?


We've long published 1.3 and 2.0 docs after the 2.4 launch. There's no
reason to drop 2.2 docs from the website entirely at this time. It is
a question whether the 2.2 docs are maintained, or simply kept
available in final form?

Are you seeking to keep httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/ open for
revision? There need to be three project members willing to maintain
and review each others changes, or it is now time to simply close the
branch to most edits.



I've been away for a bit, so I probably lack context here.

We didn't close the 1.3 docs to edit until ... well, they can still be 
edited, although it's been years since anyone has.


We should keep the 2.2 docs online, for sure. Making them continue to be 
updated is fine - they still have typos and broken links in them that 
need to be fixed.


The 1.3 and 2.0 docs died due to lack of interest, not due to policy. 
And, at some point (like after the 2.6 release, for example) we'll want 
to go back and add some rel canonical stuff in the headers to point to 
the newest version.


I'm just saying that I think it's fine to let them die a natural death, 
rather than killing them by policy.

Re: [POLL] Final status of 2.2.x branch

[Luca Toscano]

2018-02-22 19:27 GMT+01:00 William A Rowe Jr :

> On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Luca Toscano 
> wrote:
> >
> > does this mean also removing the doc pages? If so I'd be a little bit
> > concerned, there are still a lot of people using 2.2 and even
> not-up-to-date
> > documentation is still better than nothing. Maybe we could send an email
> to
> > users@ to announce this beforehand?
>
> We've long published 1.3 and 2.0 docs after the 2.4 launch. There's no
> reason to drop 2.2 docs from the website entirely at this time. It is
> a question whether the 2.2 docs are maintained, or simply kept
> available in final form?
>

Simply kept available for whoever needs them, just wanted to be sure (first
time that I see a version deprecation).

Are you seeking to keep httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/ open for
> revision? There need to be three project members willing to maintain
> and review each others changes, or it is now time to simply close the
> branch to most edits.
>

Nope, thanks for the work that you are doing!

Luca

Re: [POLL] Final status of 2.2.x branch

[William A Rowe Jr]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 6:53 AM, Luca Toscano  wrote:
>
> does this mean also removing the doc pages? If so I'd be a little bit
> concerned, there are still a lot of people using 2.2 and even not-up-to-date
> documentation is still better than nothing. Maybe we could send an email to
> users@ to announce this beforehand?

We've long published 1.3 and 2.0 docs after the 2.4 launch. There's no
reason to drop 2.2 docs from the website entirely at this time. It is
a question whether the 2.2 docs are maintained, or simply kept
available in final form?

Are you seeking to keep httpd/branches/2.2.x/docs/manual/ open for
revision? There need to be three project members willing to maintain
and review each others changes, or it is now time to simply close the
branch to most edits.

Re: [POLL] Final status of 2.2.x branch

[Eric Covener]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 8:32 AM, Ruediger Pluem  wrote:
>
>
> On 02/22/2018 01:53 PM, Luca Toscano wrote:
>> Hi William,
>>
>> 2018-02-21 16:25 GMT+01:00 William A Rowe Jr > >:
>>
>>
>> In the absence of three active contributors, I volunteer to clean up
>> the website, www dist site and svn in the coming days (see the current
>> state of 2.0.x resources for examples), based on original consensus.
>>
>>
>> does this mean also removing the doc pages? If so I'd be a little bit 
>> concerned, there are still a lot of people using
>> 2.2 and even not-up-to-date documentation is still better than nothing. 
>> Maybe we could send an email to users@ to
>> announce this beforehand?
>
> You could still get to the 1.3 and 2.0 documentation:
>
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/1.3/
> http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/
>
> It is just no longer linked on the page. So people could still use their 
> bookmarks. They might not find it that easy via
> Google any longer.

+1, and I think search has not really misfired in my experience.

Re: [POLL] Final status of 2.2.x branch

[Ruediger Pluem]

On 02/22/2018 01:53 PM, Luca Toscano wrote:
> Hi William,
> 
> 2018-02-21 16:25 GMT+01:00 William A Rowe Jr  >:
> 
> 
> In the absence of three active contributors, I volunteer to clean up
> the website, www dist site and svn in the coming days (see the current
> state of 2.0.x resources for examples), based on original consensus.
> 
> 
> does this mean also removing the doc pages? If so I'd be a little bit 
> concerned, there are still a lot of people using
> 2.2 and even not-up-to-date documentation is still better than nothing. Maybe 
> we could send an email to users@ to
> announce this beforehand?

You could still get to the 1.3 and 2.0 documentation:

http://httpd.apache.org/docs/1.3/
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/

It is just no longer linked on the page. So people could still use their 
bookmarks. They might not find it that easy via
Google any longer.

Regards

Rüdiger

Re: [POLL] Final status of 2.2.x branch

[Luca Toscano]

Hi William,

2018-02-21 16:25 GMT+01:00 William A Rowe Jr :

>
> In the absence of three active contributors, I volunteer to clean up
> the website, www dist site and svn in the coming days (see the current
> state of 2.0.x resources for examples), based on original consensus.
>

does this mean also removing the doc pages? If so I'd be a little bit
concerned, there are still a lot of people using 2.2 and even
not-up-to-date documentation is still better than nothing. Maybe we could
send an email to users@ to announce this beforehand?

For the rest, +1 from me.

Luca

Re: [POLL] Final status of 2.2.x branch

[Daniel Ferradal]

+1

2018-02-22 7:40 GMT+01:00 Plüm, Rüdiger, Vodafone Group
:
>
>
>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>> Von: Eric Covener [mailto:cove...@gmail.com]
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 21. Februar 2018 16:51
>> An: Apache HTTP Server Development List 
>> Betreff: Re: [POLL] Final status of 2.2.x branch
>>
>> > In the absence of three active contributors, I volunteer to clean up
>> > the website, www dist site and svn in the coming days (see the current
>> > state of 2.0.x resources for examples), based on original consensus.
>>
>> +1
>
> +1
>
> Regards
>
> Rüdiger



-- 
Daniel Ferradal
HTTPD Docs. I translate to Spanish.
#httpd help at Freenode

Re: [POLL] Final status of 2.2.x branch

[Eric Covener]

> In the absence of three active contributors, I volunteer to clean up
> the website, www dist site and svn in the coming days (see the current
> state of 2.0.x resources for examples), based on original consensus.

+1