----- Original Message ----
> From: Paul Querna <p...@querna.org>
> To: general@incubator.apache.org
> Sent: Mon, December 7, 2009 5:34:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Publishing api docs for Subversion
>
> On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Doug Cutting wrote:
> > William A. Rowe Jr. wrote:
> >>
> >> I suspect that renaming /docs/trunk/ to /docs/dev/ would be sufficient and
> >> follow this best practice?
> >
> > I don't know how much folks look at the URL, but I think I've heard Roy
> > indicate that all developer-specific stuff should be under a dev/ URL.
> >
> > I think it would be better yet not to link to it from the side bar, which
> > appears on every page, but rather just from the http://httpd.apache.org/dev/
> > page. If the primary point of posting it is so that developers can refer to
> > it without having to build it themselves, it doesn't need to be posted so
> > prominently, does it?
>
> But in a way, its still missing a point -- because the other
> documentation URL,s, IE for 2.2.x, are direct subversion exports, with
> no voting on their contents, so its really a branches/2.2.x/docs
> instead of trunk/docs.
>
> I think the stance being taken understandable, but I believe the
> burden is being placed completely in the wrong direction. Make things
> easier to do, not harder.
>
> IANAL, but whats so bad from the ASF liability standpoint that
> requires voting on website content? if there is ever a problem, we
> pull it.....
Exactly. That's the key difference between a release and a website, we
can't take the release back. I honestly can't think of a reason we'd be
successfully sued for actual website content unless we failed to pull down
the offending material once notified of the breech.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
