On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Wayne Haigh wrote:

> I was thinking along the lines of documentation having it's own CVS
> repository along with a coresponding mailing list.

Why would we need a separate CVS repository? We're quite far from getting our
current single one overloaded with committers (I think I do about 99.9% of
all commits).

Also, what would be said on the separate mailing list that can't be held on
one of the existing ones? We already have some problems with people who don't
see the point or even the differences between the lists and I can't see how
adding a new one will help out.

Or are you talking about a cvs-commit mailing list for the docs specificly?

> The documentation itself could be broken down into a more structured
> approach along similar lines to the way in which Apache's documentation is
> created/updated.

I'm sorry, but don't know how Apache's documentation is structured. Can you
elaborate on how we'd do this and how this would improve our situation?

I'm listening, I'm just a bit stubborn.

-- 
 Daniel Stenberg -- curl, cURL, Curl, CURL. Groks URLs.
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing 
your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte 
Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html