Re: a new release

> It will probably be this weekend before I get another chance to work on
> this, so if you have time, go ahead and check in corrections for the
> issues below.  I can review the english again when I get more time.

I have other fixes to check in, I'll do that.

> Hrm.  I thought the old version said that the _content_ would be in
> nodes with $NODE_FILES set and otherwise the files would still be
> generated but would only contain redirects.  Now that I think about it,
> it makes sense that one is split and one is just file creation, but the
> node will need to be rewritten again.
 
It depends on whether the manual is split at node or not. If split at node
and  $NODE_FILES is set the content of nodes is in files with name the node
name. If not split at nodes, the files are still generated but are just
redirects.
If $NODE_FILES is not set the file naming is the normal file naming.
 
> I'm fine with that.  Especially as I just edited an earlier note in the
> file that said there was an init file equivalent for each and every
> command line option.  I think you said old init files are already broken
> so we don't need to worry about this change being incompatible with them?

Yes. And besides @EXPAND is fairly new (I added it), before there was only
a variable $EXPAND. There is backward compatibility with $EXPAND (as far
as possible).

> It would be nice if more defaults could be noted in the manual too.
> Preferably, the default behavior should be listed with every option and
> variable we list.

You're right, I will correct that.

> |There is no good reason. I did it because the original manual was even
> |more splitted. I see no problem in merging the files.

And should we merge ?

Pat