Mailing List Archive: Apache: Docs

<compatibility> rule ?

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

takashi at lans-tv

May 13, 2008, 5:54 AM

Post #1 of 5 (217 views)
Permalink

<compatibility> rule ?

Is there any fixed rule for <compatibility> ?

For example, a directive which is new feature of 2.2.
In this situation some doc says "Available in 2.2(.0) and later."
I believe it don't need to say it since the directive is available
in all patch versions of 2.2.
2.2 docs are for 2.2 users.

How about a directive which is introduced in 2.2.3 ?
I think 2.2 doc have to say "Available in 2.2.3 and later.".
2.3(trunk) doc don't for the same reason I mentioned above.

Some trunk doc says "Available in 1.3.x and later"...
<http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/en/mod/mod_status.html>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe[at]httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help[at]httpd.apache.org

joshua at slive

May 13, 2008, 6:01 AM

Post #2 of 5 (206 views)
Permalink

Re: <compatibility> rule ? [In reply to]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Takashi Sato <takashi[at]lans-tv.com> wrote:
> Is there any fixed rule for <compatibility> ?
>
> For example, a directive which is new feature of 2.2.
> In this situation some doc says "Available in 2.2(.0) and later."
> I believe it don't need to say it since the directive is available
> in all patch versions of 2.2.
> 2.2 docs are for 2.2 users.
>
> How about a directive which is introduced in 2.2.3 ?
> I think 2.2 doc have to say "Available in 2.2.3 and later.".
> 2.3(trunk) doc don't for the same reason I mentioned above.
>
> Some trunk doc says "Available in 1.3.x and later"...
> <http://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/en/mod/mod_status.html>

There's no fixed rule. I tried, on the transition from 1.3 to 2.0, to
remove all the 1.3 and earlier compatibility statements, although I
obviously missed a couple.

If you'd like to set a policy, go ahead and set one. I wouldn't mind
saying that we track compatibility within major version numbers (so in
2.2 we would still say "available in 2.0.43 and later", but we would
drop all references to 2.x when moving to 3.0). But if you think it is
better to only track compatibility within 2.2, that is fine with me as
well.

Joshua.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe[at]httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help[at]httpd.apache.org

mads at toftum

May 13, 2008, 6:07 AM

Post #3 of 5 (207 views)
Permalink

Re: <compatibility> rule ? [In reply to]

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 09:01:45AM -0400, Joshua Slive wrote:
> If you'd like to set a policy, go ahead and set one. I wouldn't mind
> saying that we track compatibility within major version numbers (so in
> 2.2 we would still say "available in 2.0.43 and later", but we would
> drop all references to 2.x when moving to 3.0). But if you think it is
> better to only track compatibility within 2.2, that is fine with me as
> well.
>
I would prefer tracking major version. 2.0.x is still widely used and
there's quite a bit of confusion about the differences as it is.
Keeping it to major versions might help reduce the confusion.

vh

Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe[at]httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help[at]httpd.apache.org

takashi at lans-tv

May 13, 2008, 9:46 AM

Post #4 of 5 (202 views)
Permalink

Re: <compatibility> rule ? [In reply to]

On Tue, 13 May 2008 09:01:45 -0400
"Joshua Slive" <joshua[at]slive.ca> wrote:

> If you'd like to set a policy, go ahead and set one. I wouldn't mind
> saying that we track compatibility within major version numbers (so in
> 2.2 we would still say "available in 2.0.43 and later", but we would
> drop all references to 2.x when moving to 3.0). But if you think it is
> better to only track compatibility within 2.2, that is fine with me as
> well.

On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:07:18 +0200
Mads Toftum <mads[at]toftum.dk> wrote:

> I would prefer tracking major version. 2.0.x is still widely used and
> there's quite a bit of confusion about the differences as it is.
> Keeping it to major versions might help reduce the confusion.

OK.
I don't believe it as strongly as I run without some consensus.
I won't drop compat info between manor versions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe[at]httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help[at]httpd.apache.org

A.Ford at ford-mason

May 15, 2008, 3:21 AM

Post #5 of 5 (196 views)
Permalink

Re: <compatibility> rule ? [In reply to]

This is a subject that I have been grappling with for the Apache Pocket
Reference. I have written a perl script to scour the source trees for
command_recs and to report differences say between the 1.3.39, 2.0.61
and 2.2.8 trees, and in my DocBook source code. It is a bit crude and
one has to interpret the output, but the original version I wrote for
the first edition of the APR pointed out a number of errors in my
coverage. It also flags things like the ExcessRequestsPerChild and
GprofDir directives that are present but not documented. It is limited
to the source trees that one has unpacked.

I would be happy to publish the script, once I've finished the book and
tidied the script up a bit. I was thinking of extending it to poke into
the <compatibility> elements.

Andrew

Takashi Sato wrote:
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 09:01:45 -0400
> "Joshua Slive" <joshua[at]slive.ca> wrote:
>
>
>> If you'd like to set a policy, go ahead and set one. I wouldn't mind
>> saying that we track compatibility within major version numbers (so in
>> 2.2 we would still say "available in 2.0.43 and later", but we would
>> drop all references to 2.x when moving to 3.0). But if you think it is
>> better to only track compatibility within 2.2, that is fine with me as
>> well.
>>
>
> On Tue, 13 May 2008 15:07:18 +0200
> Mads Toftum <mads[at]toftum.dk> wrote:
>
>
>> I would prefer tracking major version. 2.0.x is still widely used and
>> there's quite a bit of confusion about the differences as it is.
>> Keeping it to major versions might help reduce the confusion.
>>
>
> OK.
> I don't believe it as strongly as I run without some consensus.
> I won't drop compat info between manor versions.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe[at]httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help[at]httpd.apache.org
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
> ______________________________________________________________________
>

--
Andrew Ford, Director Pauntley Prints / Ford & Mason Ltd
A.Ford[at]ford-mason.co.uk South Wing Compton House
pauntley-prints.co.uk Compton Green, Redmarley Tel: +44 1531 829900
ford-mason.co.uk Gloucester GL19 3JB Fax: +44 1531 829901
refcards.com cronolog.org Great Britain Mobile: +44 7785 258278

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe[at]httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help[at]httpd.apache.org

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact lists@gossamer-threads.com