Release process for Xorg 7.1

Egbert Eich eich at
Tue Apr 25 06:02:13 PDT 2006

Keith Packard writes:
 > On Wed, 2006-03-15 at 22:11 -0500, Adam Jackson wrote:
 > > Doc: xorg-docs
 > > 
 > > We got a maintainers file, and updates to the specs for Composite, Damage, 
 > > Fixes, and Shape.  This one's easy.
 > I have a fundemental disagreement with where the docs are packaged. I've
 > been placing protocol specifications with the protocol packages and
 > library documentation with the library itself. Placing them in a distant
 > directory seems rather 'anti-modular' to me. I don't mind if we leave
 > existing static docs in this directory, but new extensions should ship
 > with built-in documentation, and libraries should certainly ship with
 > documentation as part of the source package. Otherwise there's an
 > unmentioned implicit cross-module version dependency.

If we decide to ship new documentation the way Keith suggests we
should migrate any existing documentation in the same fashion.
It may sound reasonalbe now to treat them differently - but
some years down the road nobody will remember why it is done
that way - espcecially as the reasons will sound more strange
then than now.
So since we are currently still in a big clean up phase why not
make everything as consistent as possible?


More information about the xorg mailing list