Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 18:21:10 -0700 From: Dima Dorfman <dima@unixfreak.org> To: Murray Stokely <murray@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: 2 chapters in bad need of an overhaul Message-ID: <20010824012115.A0FCA3E35@bazooka.unixfreak.org> In-Reply-To: <20010821233454.Q14209@windriver.com>; from murray@FreeBSD.org on "Tue, 21 Aug 2001 23:34:54 -0700"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Murray Stokely <murray@FreeBSD.org> writes: > > --oP9at/Ymg5VWhwKB > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > Content-Disposition: inline > > On Tue, Aug 21, 2001 at 10:46:48PM -0700, Dima Dorfman wrote: > > I was under the impression that we didn't want to write about things > > that people couldn't get in anything that we would consider `release > > quality'. (The new md(4) (and mdconfig(8)) will (should) not be MFC'd > > to RELENG_4 because they're incompatible with what's already there.) > > If this isn't the case, I'll gladly write up something about the new > > md(4) features; I was planning to do that when 5.0 hit -RELEASE, > > anyway. > > We reference many things about 5.x already (a couple of notes on > devfs, some stuff in the l10n chapter, etc.). For the printed edition, > that I'm obviously biased towards enhancing, we most definitely want to > cover 5.x as best as possible. I don't think there is any harm in > covering 5.x features in the online copy of the Handbook either. If > you disagree, then we can always conditionally exclude your mdconfig > additions behind a parameter entity like %not.published; I don't disagree, although I thought I rememberd someone saying that we didn't want to do this--perhaps I was just hallucinating. I'll write a section about the -current md(4) and post it up for review in a few days, a week at the latest. 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?20010824012115.A0FCA3E35>