>>>> "Jarl" == Jarl Friis <jarl(a)diku.dk>
Jarl> On 14 Dec 2001, Adrian Aichner wrote:
> Do the manuals work for you?
I have linklinted them, so they better work :-)
> Have you noticed any breakage in them?
Jarl> I just wondering about the strange chapter/section numbering:
Jarl> XEmacs user's manual:
Jarl> 3.2 Command Line Switches and Arguments
Jarl> 3.3 How XEmacs finds Directories and Files
Jarl> 22.8 Packages
Jarl> What a jump?
Ah, yes, I saw that. I'll have to track that down.
Nothing that I caused, I would hope :-)
> The big questions I can't decide on are these:
> How many sets of manuals should we have online?
> o stable and gamma and beta
> o only beta
> o only stable
> At this point http://www.xemacs.org/Documentation/beta
> ca. 18000KB.
Jarl> My opinion: For every stable major.minor *and* the latest
Jarl> (unstable) beta
Every stable could expand to 19.0 .. 21.1, a long list, a lot of disk,
very little value.
I think we need a old-documentation-removal-criterion.
Vin, what are your thought on this?
How about most recent stable version only?
> Should we use symbolic names as suggested above?
> Should we put them under specific version number directories like
> to make references to them specific (beta was 21.2 yesterday and is
> 21.5 today)?
Jarl> Both, but use symbolic names when making links, that would
Jarl> be easier to bookmark, and refer to from other HTML
Jarl> documents, but store them in version directories, that also
Jarl> makes it possible to link to specific versions.
I do now understand this. Please give examples.
What I was getting at was that you need to write down a date for every
. link you put somewhere.
All those links have builtin expiry dates.
. is specific, only the
link may point nowhere after its manuals are removed form the website
after 21.4 is stable and put up instead.
Note how 21.1, 21.4, 21.5 will be available along time, when referred
to that way, as they go to the motions (beta, gamma, stable).
I think beta, gamma, stable are convenient entry points to access
these at a given date.
When pointing to these for discussion or advice on mailing lists one
would be well advises to use specific version numbers instead.
One could say:
You will always find the docs for the current beta release in
To see how new feature is used, refer to
> Should we only use major.minor to increase the manual's lifetime and
> just update to latest on that branch from time to time?
> e.g. http://www.xemacs.org/Documentation/21.1/
Jarl> The editor is unchanged (with respect to features) among
Jarl> patch-numbers, so with that in mind major.minor should be
Jarl> enough for documentation, but then again bugs are fixed in
Jarl> documentation too from patch-number to patch-number. But for
Good, I think we have agreement on this.
Jarl> online it makes no sense to have other than the latest
Jarl> patch-number available.