On Fri, Oct 24 2008, Jens Seidel wrote:
> Manoj, does it make sense to have two nearly identical copies
> of Social Contract v1.1 available? (They differ only minor in
> HTML tags.)
There should only be one v1.1 version around; yes.
> Is missing symbolic link support in CVS the reason?
No. Usually, when a new version of a foundation document is
created, we copy NAME.wml to NAME.X.Y.wml, and NAME.wml is the new
version.
That being the case, social_contract.1.1.wml should not exist.
> Maybe it would be possible to rewrite social_contract.html to
> contain only links to version 1.0 and 1.1?
So, there is nothing else that refers to social_contract.1.1,
and the file social_contract.wml only refers to ocial_contract.1.0, as
does the index, so I have just removed the extra file.
manoj
--
There's one fool at least in every married couple.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.golden-gryphon.com/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
