Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 14:23:40 -0800 (PST) From: Annelise Anderson <andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai@bart.nl>, doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: branch vs. osversion* (was: Re: "ze" and "zp" drivers removed...) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9912101410200.10205-100000@andrsn.stanford.edu> In-Reply-To: <199912101525.KAA49307@server.baldwin.cx>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 10 Dec 1999, John Baldwin wrote:
>
> On 10-Dec-99 Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:
> > -On [19991210 16:10], John Baldwin (jhb@FreeBSD.org) wrote:
> > But I am now starting to think a branching of the handbook to the
> > relevant versions might be desirable. This lessens the clutter we get
> > from putting too much in the same document.
Branching the handbook doesn't appeal to me. I actually have quite
a few different versions of FreeBSD on different machines (or different
drives), partly because I haven't updated stuff and partly because
2.2.8 runs my old 152x card, 3.0-current as of September 98 does a
great job on a laptop, only 4.0 runs vmware, etc. I think a few
simple notes ("This driver was removed between 3.3-RELEASE and
3.4-RELEASE") ought to be adequate. You might not to talk about
-stable and -current (except generically, as in "keeping -current")
and develop a notation for what is now -current, i.e., 4.0-C or
something like that, so that references to it don't become outdated.
Publishers deal with different versions of software all the time.
"Not available before x.2" and such. Certainly "old stuff" will
get dropped, but those running, say, 2.2.8, should not update the
copy of the handbook/faq on that machine.
Annelise
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9912101410200.10205-100000>