Subject: Web page status

From: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 03 Jun 1999 00:15:39 -0500

Could html and manpage authors check over what's on the web pages to make
certain that everything has been correctly updated?  I'm concerned that the
copy from the 2.2.2 tarball may have overwritten something that is actually
newer in the mainline.  I also want to make sure all of the manpages are as
they should be.

Things look OK to me, but then again I didn't notice the last problem with
out-of-date pages.

 - J<
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 08:36:02 -0400

> Things look OK to me, but then again I didn't notice the last problem with

The man pages are not as they should be.  I believe the pages themselves
are updated, but the index doesn't include FvwmAnimate.

I don't believe you are using the script from the latest CVS to
generate the pages.  The script should find all the man pages in
2.2.2 and create the index page.

--
Dan Espen
444 Hoes Lane  Room RRC 1C-214           E-mail: [email-masked]
Piscataway, NJ 08854                     Phone: (732) 699-5570
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm-workers" in the
body of a message to [email-masked].
To report problems, send mail to [email-masked]

---

From: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 03 Jun 1999 09:53:25 -0500

>>>>> "DE" == Dan Espen <[email-masked]> writes:

DE> I don't believe you are using the script from the latest CVS to
DE> generate the pages.

That's the problem; I was using the script from the 2.2.2 release.  It
should be better now.

Interestingly enough, though, look at the FvwmAnimate page and scroll down
to the description of FvwmAnimateEffect.  I'm trying to figure out what
causes this.

 - J<

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 1999 15:11:39 -0400

> Things look OK to me, but then again I didn't notice the last problem with

The man pages should  definitely    be from the  current    production
release.  The FAQ, links, module  docs and other  pages should be from
the current CVS.

I don't think thats the case.

If a script, or a complete list would help, let me know.

---

From: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 03 Jun 1999 16:39:24 -0500

>>>>> "DE" == Dan Espen <[email-masked]> writes:

DE> The man pages should definitely be from the current production release.
DE> The FAQ, links, module docs and other pages should be from the current
DE> CVS.

If they're different (at least at the point that 2.2.2 was cut), that's a
problem, isn't it?

 - J<

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 09:18:08 -0400

> If they're different (at least at the point that 2.2.2 was cut), that's a

Come to think of it, yeah I guess so.

I think  we need  some more  rules for preparing  a production  branch
release.  Ie. copy the "release independent  files", FAQ, module docs,
etc. from the lastest CVS into the branch.

Notice how I  blame my own mistakes  on the lack  of rules?  Oh  well,
practice makes perfect.

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:12:09 -0400 (EDT)

> If they're different (at least at the point that 2.2.2 was cut), that's a

I would agree: *all* docs, faqs and the like ought to be from the
current supported/stable/production (whatever you want to call it)
release, i.e. 2.2.2.

I'm ambivalent about the need to put docs from the current CVS on the web. 
However, *if* the stuff from the current CVS goes anywhere, they must not
be linked from the main pages, but from a clearly-marked separate page.

--
Steve Robbins                              <[email-masked]>

When I was dead, I wore a strong perfume.
When I was dead, I never left the room.

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 09:55:47 -0400 (EDT)

> etc. from the lastest CVS into the branch.

Be careful, here.  There are *some* files in docs that are
release-independent, like links.html and download.html.

The FAQ and module docs, on the other hand, are *NOT* release independent! 
The module interface, for one, just got changed with the GSFR.  The new
docs are not appropriate for distribution with 2.2.  

Before a release of 2.2.x, one should diff the FAQ file to see if any new
ones are relevant and add them.  But a wholesale copy of docs/* is wrong.

---

From: Dan Espen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Jun 1999 10:08:23 -0400

> ones are relevant and add them.  But a wholesale copy of docs/* is wrong.

I agree that a wholesale copy is not the way to go.

I believe that the module docs generally  identify the release where a
feature  appeared.  (I haven't seen tghe  GSFR stuff.)  They should be
written that way.  If you  are writing a  module for 2.2.2, you should
be made aware of the "current" state of the module interface.

I think the FAQ goes the same way, if the answer to a question is based
on a beta, I think it usually says so.

---

From: Jason L Tibbitts III <[email-masked]>
Date: 04 Jun 1999 09:56:30 -0500

>>>>> "SR" == Steve Robbins <[email-masked]> writes:

SR> The module interface, for one, just got changed with the GSFR.

OK, then the module doc distributed with 2.2.2 needs to either be removed
(because we don't want people writing to that interface) or a nice
disclaimer about this documenting the development version and possibly not
applying to current stable code needs to be added.  Once that's done they
can be the same.  But there's no point in distributing a doc that is
radically different from the one we put up on the web page (unless the page
changes after the fact, but they should be the same at the time of
release).

 - J<

---

From: Steve Robbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 1999 20:38:28 -0400 (EDT)

> on a beta, I think it usually says so.

Mmm.  I'm not sure if the docs are written the way you say -- I probably
wouldn't have done so for any FAQ entries I touched -- but I agree that
they should be.   [Another rule for DEVELOPERS?]

Supposing that things are done this way, merging the changes back for a
2.2.x release seems reasonable.

There's a little bit of Elvis in everybody.
Except Michael J. Fox -- he's the anti-Elvis.