> I don't really like the idea of branching, because it requires
> synchronisation between the -stable and the 2.0 branch for spelling
> corrections, stylistic changes, etc. As far as I can see the only chapters
> that are really version specific (in a way that it can be really
> confusing) are the installation chapters (1.x) and the cgd chapter (2.0).
> Wouldn't it suffice to note in the introduction that the cgd chapter is
> 2.0-specific? But I am not a CVS branching expert, so correct me if I am
> completely wrong ;).

Neither am I thats why I popped it out there. But I agree with
what your saying, I don't like the idea of syncing the versions
but as Jan pointed out, it might actually make fixing the 2.0 nits
easier.

One thing I am overlooking is what are Grant and other XML
gurus  long term plans? IIRC he was mentioning things like automagic
gluing to other documentation etc. We might want to take the
path of least resistance so when that work starts, it is easier.

> BTW. Wouldn't it be a good idea to create a detailed todo list (what needs
> fixing, what chapters should be rewritten, etc.)?

Right now I periodically do that to this list when I feel the
Guide needs it. It might be a good idea to crank out another
one.

	j