Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 23:26:10 +0000 From: Ceri Davies <setantae@submonkey.net> To: "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: doc@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FAQ confusion Message-ID: <20030123232610.GA2671@submonkey.net> In-Reply-To: <200301231955.h0NJtEfO031355@intruder.bmah.org> References: <xzp4r80hu2o.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20030123175022.GA11524@submonkey.net> <200301231955.h0NJtEfO031355@intruder.bmah.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 11:55:14AM -0800, Bruce A. Mah wrote: > If memory serves me right, Ceri Davies wrote: > > > No; freebsd.ent has been updated, but it looks like it needs additional > > entities. > > > > Off the top of my head, I think we'll want something like os.4x.rel, > > os.4x.rel.date, etc. and corresponding os.5x entities. In fact it's a shame > > that os.current is even called that, since we've been using it for -STABLE > > releases all this time... > > I always thought that "current" means the "the current release", not > "CURRENT". (At least that's the semantics of the corresponding entity > in the release documentation, which defines release.prev, > release.current, and release.next for its own use.) Yes, I agree. Before des notified us of this it had never crossed my mind, but I just meant that looking at it now it's slightly confusing (especially when you've just read the extract of the FAQ that des posted). I've also always thought of os.current as referring to the last release. I doubt I'd have committed anything different to freebsd.ent if it had been me doing it, and apologise if I sounded like I was disparaging that commit. > I don't like the idea of tying entities to specific major releases. > That's going to force a huge search'n'replace effort at some point in > the not-too-distant future. I'm also not keen on it, but I wanted to throw some ideas at the list to get folks thinking; I've actually just logged in to revise my earlier statement of availability - I'll be lucky if I get (free) time on a computer in the next week. > For the Web site, I (somewhat clumsily) attempted to define the concept > of multiple releases that could be considered "current". At the time, > it was critical that we be able to do this without changing the files > that didn't need to express this concept. The result can be seen in > revision 1.12 of www/en/includes.xsl and revision 1.55 of > www/en/includes.sgml. This is a gross hack, but it kind of fit at the > time. I saw the commit, but didn't look at the deltas yet; I'll do so. I also hesitate to suggest this, but if this can't be fixed soon (and I'm very sorry, but I *know* I can't do it "soon"), it just might be worth manually editing that part of the FAQ, as I assume that we'll have a lot more users looking at this over the next few weeks. Yes, it's cvs-hell, but at least it won't look silly ;) Ceri -- My waraxe seeks your last day! 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?20030123232610.GA2671>