> > 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?
> Yes. That was the reason for the initial question...
> For instance, http://james.apache.org/provided_matchers_2_1.html li
Noel,
> > > 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
> > 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
> documentatio
> -Original Message-
> From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 12 June 2003 11:42
> To: James Users List
> Subject: RE: Correct version of the xdocs?
>
>
> > Is http://james.apache.org/index.html using pages generated from
> > the correct
>
> Is http://james.apache.org/index.html using pages generated from
> the correct
> version of the xdocs?
The docs on the site refer to the HEAD of cvs, or v3.
It would probably be a better idea to have the docs for the current stable version,
but for that we need to re-jig our cvs r
Hi,
Is http://james.apache.org/index.html using pages generated from the correct
version of the xdocs?
For instance, http://james.apache.org/provided_matchers_2_1.html lists
"AttachmentFileNameIs" as a provided matcher, but this is in neither the
source or binary distributions of 2.1
