Re: [DOC]: Vote on oustanding doc issues?

Martin van den Bemt wrote: >>On the topic of a new mailing list: >>I think we can do the next steps inside the tomcat-dev list or on our >>own. (BTW, let's use "DOC:" as a prefix so it's easier to scan for new >>messages.) I want to do this in full view of the rest of the community, >>mostly so t

Re: [DOC] Vote on oustanding doc issues?

Rob S. wrote: > Preamble: =) > > >>I don't want to rush it. >> > > Agreed, but at the same time, I'd like to decide sooner than later. I'm on > co-op until August 24th, then I start full-time school again. 4 courses > doesn't leave a lot of room for TC docs. Judging by the amount of progr

RE: [DOC]: Vote on oustanding doc issues?

> Yeah, I guess anarchy will be a little too... anarchic :-) (Rob S. made > the point more strongly in his latest message.) PDF conversion would be pretty cool... Anyone feel like coming up with a sheet to generate XSL:FO? =) > If someone is scared of XML, they can submit it to us in text form

RE: [DOC] Vote on oustanding doc issues?

> Things To Do before we decide on format or CVS: > > * Look at the latest TOC and make comments > > * Pick a section or subsection and start writing :-) > > * Look at http://tomcatbook.sourceforge.net/ and > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/tcbook and see if there's anyone there to > recruit, or if

RE: [DOC]: Vote on oustanding doc issues?

>PDF conversion would be pretty cool... Anyone feel like >coming up with a >sheet to generate XSL:FO? =) Good idea, we should find help on xml.apache.org. >> If someone is scared of XML, they can submit it to us in >text format and >> we can go add tags (as time permits), but we're all >deve

Re: [DOC]: Vote on oustanding doc issues?

Rob S. wrote: > The tough thing about separating the docs is that the server.xml config > stuff is spread out among multiple files. I wonder how difficult it would > be to maintain an index, or even if it's necessary. I don't think it's a big deal. I forgot to list the appendices, but one of

Re: [DOC] Vote on oustanding doc issues?

Rob S. wrote: >>I like this compromise. I will propose that we get rid of the 3.2 docs >>on the site -- once I'm convinced they're similar enough. There's still >>that old "3.3 is a rogue release" sentiment floating around, and people >>might not appreciate giving 3.3 implied legitimacy by mak

Re: [DOC]: Vote on oustanding doc issues?

on 7/10/01 4:06 AM, "Rob S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > PDF conversion would be pretty cool... Anyone feel like coming up with a > sheet to generate XSL:FO? =) We have started that here: Not perfect yet

Re: [DOC] Vote on oustanding doc issues?

On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Alex Chaffee wrote: > > > > Bundle the 3.2.x docs with 3.2.x and only have the 3.3 docs online ("latest > > Tomcat release"). If you want the 3.2.x docs, get them with the binary or > > whatever. I certainly don't think we should keep old versions of > > documentation upd

Re: [DOC]: Vote on oustanding doc issues?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Alex Chaffee wrote: > Rob S. wrote: > > > > The tough thing about separating the docs is that the server.xml config > > stuff is spread out among multiple files. I wonder how difficult it would > > be to maintain an index, or even if it's necessary. > > > I don't think

RE: [DOC] Vote on oustanding doc issues?

> Unless and until there's a 3.3 or 4.0 final release, *3.2* is the "latest > Tomcat release", and deserves to be documented on the web site. Ah, but that's exactly my point. I see two versions of Tomcat docs up there now and I'm like, "wtf?" Why have the 3.3 docs online then? Now that I've RT

Re: [DOC] Vote on oustanding doc issues?

Craig R. McClanahan wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Jul 2001, Alex Chaffee wrote: > > >>>Bundle the 3.2.x docs with 3.2.x and only have the 3.3 docs online ("latest >>>Tomcat release"). If you want the 3.2.x docs, get them with the binary or >>>whatever. I certainly don't think we should keep old versi

RE: [DOC] Vote on oustanding doc issues?

>> I like this compromise. I will propose that we get rid of >the 3.2 docs >> on the site -- once I'm convinced they're similar enough. >There's still >> that old "3.3 is a rogue release" sentiment floating around, >and people >> might not appreciate giving 3.3 implied legitimacy by making it

RE: [DOC] Vote on oustanding doc issues?

>OK, but my point is that as we improve the 3.x docs -- >regardless of the >value of x -- the 3.2 docs will become less relevant. > >Right now there are many differences between the 3.2 and 3.3 docs, but >they're mostly in the connector docs, which AFAIK haven't >changed much if at >all in op

RE: [DOC] Vote on oustanding doc issues?

> I was off the list for a while. I tried to read through the > archives but all > the vitriol gave me a headache. Did they just agree to > disagree? Do you > think there'll be a problem with proposing to remove the 3.2 > docs from the site? >From what I remember, 3.3 is a major refactoring

Re: [DOC] Vote on oustanding doc issues?

*being random* The RPM of tc4 worked great on Mandrake 8.0 beta 3. Incidentally, the tc4 docs suck. I had to read deeply into the config files to find out how to get it working with apache. This is fine for a seasoned admin, but the general web community wouldn't have a clue (By that I refer to

Re: [DOC] Vote on oustanding doc issues?

Adam Fowler at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > *being random* The RPM of tc4 worked great on Mandrake 8.0 beta 3. > > Incidentally, the tc4 docs suck. I had to read deeply into the config files > to find out how to get it working with apache. This is fine for a seasoned > admin, but the general web c

Re: [DOC] Vote on oustanding doc issues?

Ah-ha! the culprit!!! 8o) Adam. On Friday 13 July 2001 03:36, you wrote: > Adam Fowler at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > *being random* The RPM of tc4 worked great on Mandrake 8.0 beta 3. > > > > Incidentally, the tc4 docs suck. I had to read deeply into the config > > files to find out how to get