Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 00:17:26 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas <keramida@freebsd.org> To: Marc Fonvieille <blackend@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: Use of -CURRENT manual pages in our docs Message-ID: <20021018211726.GA2822@hades.hell.gr> In-Reply-To: <20021018224804.F50649@abigail.blackend.org> References: <20021018212220.B50649@abigail.blackend.org> <20021018194751.GG16196@hades.hell.gr> <20021018223014.E50649@abigail.blackend.org> <20021018224804.F50649@abigail.blackend.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On 2002-10-18 22:48, Marc Fonvieille <blackend@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 10:47:51PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > So what happens when today's current becomes tomorrow's stable? > > I hope we won't have to rename all the &man.current.foo.X; entities to > > &man.stable.foo.X; :-( > > However, indeed, we should avoid &man.current etc. for base system > manpages. Tell me what you think about it, since it's easy to fix > man-refs in that way... That's what I originally meant. We shouldn't overuse &man.current.*; entities. I'm ok with that, if it's also added explicitly as a comment to the file. Something similar to the following should be more than enough: Whenever the need arises for a manpage reference that is only meaningful for FreeBSD-current, the convention is to add an entity to this file of the form &man.current.foo.1;. After a while, when all required parts have been MFCed, you are expected to change the documents to use &man.foo.1; and update this file removing &man.current.foo.1;. I would even go as far as making the &man.current.*; entities a separate file, at this point. But this is your call, and still just an opinion. Giorgos. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the messagehelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20021018211726.GA2822>