On Dec 23, 2007 12:32 AM, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 22, 2007 6:11 PM, Victor Trac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Dec 22, 2007 10:55 PM, Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Dec 22, 2007 2:27 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > > Hey all, > > > > > > > > I came across this http://httpd.apache.org/related_projects.html: > > > > > > > This info is seriously outdated, as neither stronghold nor raven are > > > > available anymore, and the RSA patent is at this point long expired. > > > > (This page also makes no mention of mod_ssl). > > > > > > You'll notice that this page isn't linked from anywhere. > > > > I have to respectfully disagree here. The original poster came across them > > somehow, so it's linked from somewhere. > > Go ask google where it is linked from. You'll see that it is > vanishingly close to nowhere. > > > > > > > > You run a certain risk when you do random google searches and expect > > > the result to be authoritative. It wouldn't be a bad idea to have a > > > "This page is obsolete" message at the top, but it shouldn't be > > > causing problems in any case. > > > > > > Joshua. > > > > It isn't unreasonable to expect that a document from a http.apache.org > > address to be authoritative. It is one thing to look at a search result > > from some random blog, but this is apache.org, a domain that should be most > > authoritative about apache. > > > > Documentation should be as accurate and clean as any code. If there is an > > obscure bug that only affects a very small percentage of people, it is > > reasonable to expect that the code be fixed to maintain a certain level of > > quality for the project overall. Just because it "shouldn't cause any > > problems" doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. The page should be fixed or > > deleted. > > If you want a code analogy, this is more equivalent to a bug in a > source file that is not even included in the final program. Sure, it > should be fixed, but it is hardly important.
I completely agree with you that it's not a very important issue, but my point is that apache.org is not just any google search as it should be the start of authority for anything apache related. > And speaking of getting bugs fixed, the bug database would be the > place to file issues like this so they aren't lost. > That's a constructive response that the original poster would have appreciated. I'm sure he wasn't the first person to be confused by the outdated documentation, but just the first to bother to take the time to write to the mailing list about it. Telling him to ignore the page and not to trust any old google search is akin to saying that his input is not valuable. People are intimidated enough writing to mailing lists, so anything we can do to encourage people to participate is good for Apache as a whole, even if it is just to point out where the proper place to file the bug report is. -- http://www.victortrac.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See <URL:http://httpd.apache.org/userslist.html> for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] " from the digest: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
