Re: Please comment on Online XEmacs Manuals

Thanks for your hard work on this. APA> Do the manuals work for you? One quick lookup worked well for me. APA> Have you noticed any breakage in them? I got the wrong #tag URL in my browser (Mozilla) the first time, doing a reload in browser fixed it (thus it was not a typo in my entry). This is probably not an XEmacs-side problem (either network interruption or Mozilla screwage), but I mention it in case it comes up again. APA> The big questions I can't decide on are these: These are hard questions. For one thing, there should be only one manual source, and it should be keyed to versions internally (either some sort of ＠if, or in the text mentioning that the versions of XEmacs differ). But this is obviously a huge job. So we can't hold the web site responsbile for it. I would say the most generally useful would be the beta manuals. They probably describe gamma pretty accurately, in places more accurately than the gamma manuals do. They are also relatively likely to contain improvements in explanations and stuff. The organization stuff is web-maintainer specific. My feeling is that if we end up with more than one set of manuals on line, the published URLs should be minor-version specific (eg, 21.1, 21.4), and the symbolic tags (stable, gamma) should be mentioned only in the index.html. That way the URLs stay stable with new releases. The exception is "beta" instead of "21.5", the latter would get renamed upon release, which is icky, and using "beta" properly reflects the continuity of the trunk. That is, at release of 21.5, beta gets _cloned_, not _moved_, to 22.0. -- Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN Don't ask how you can "do" free software business; ask what your business can "do for" free software.