discuss: is revhistory _that_ needed?
Subject:
RE: is revhistory _that_ needed?
From:
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag ####@####.####
Date:
26 Nov 2003 06:23:02 -0000
Message-Id: <80A07E7023257741B258296933B7426C221318@ubiinmbx01.ubinetics.co.in>
David Lawyer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 09:34:08AM +0200, Artemio wrote:
>> Hello!
>>
>> I just thought I should take the revision history away from my
>> SquashFS HOWTO
>
> I think that it's best to just have the whole revision history in the
> source only (as a comment). Except that for the recent revisions
The way I do this for the (not yet ready) [1. GNU Build System HOWTO]
is to have the CVS $Log tag in a comment at the end of the .xml file
and a comment at the top indicating that the version history is at the
end of the file.
But I think that the revision history is also important, and it should,
in one line, explain the changes in all the CVS versions that went into
that revision. I see the version history as one thing, and the revision
history as something else, and corresponding to the "delta" between two
TAGs in CVS. I find documents with revision history "nice" because they
tell me succinctly what changes have been incorporated.
1.
http://cvs.tldp.org/index.cgi/LDP/howto/docbook/GNU-Build-System-HOWTO/GNU-B
uild-System-HOWTO.xml?rev=1.11&content-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup
Giridhar
--
Y Giridhar Appaji Nag http://www.pratapgarh.com/appaji
Not that long disease, my life, but that long convalescence, my life.
The liberal-bourgeois revision, the illusion of improvement, the poison
of hope - Herzog
an individual are not necessarily those of UbiNetics
