Re: [RFC] Structural changes for Documentation directory

[Jim Nelson <james4765@verizon.net>]

Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 06:51:04PM -0400, Jim Nelson wrote:
> 
>  > True.  "./2.6-docs" would reflect the the intent of having 
>  > version-specific information, with the "./Documentation" directory left 
>  > for general information and files of historical interest.
> 
> version numbers in directories are nearly always a bad idea,
> as they always tend to look a bit silly when the subsequent
> release is made.
> 
> 		Dave
> 
> 

But it would also give a clue that the docs are out of date.  Perhaps 
later in each developement cycle, there could be an effort to check the 
documentation, with a 2.8-docs or 3.0-docs being the result, and dumping 
the 2.6-docs into the historical reference directory.

Or, the old stuff could be dropped with the new stable release.

The other possibility is to have a TODO file with a list of out-of-date 
files, and have the removal of the file listing in the TODO file be part 
of the patch submission.

Jim