discuss: is revhistory _that_ needed?
Subject:
Re: is revhistory _that_ needed?
From:
"Rodolfo J. Paiz" ####@####.####
Date:
26 Nov 2003 22:44:29 -0000
Message-Id: <6.0.0.22.0.20031126164145.02448240@mail.simpaticus.com>
At 01:18 11/26/2003, Tabatha Marshall wrote:
>On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 22:19, Artemio wrote:
> > But why do I need it to show up as revision history, if I have the
> publishing
> > date and version specified?
>
>YAY! I'm reading this HOWTO, now that I know. Thank goodness
>I didn't have to go through all kinds of stuff to figure out what you
>changed! Thank you, Author, for not making me look through CVS, since
>I'm terrible with CVS, and thank you for not burying a description of
>your changes in an obscure place in your HOWTO, so I could figure if I
>wanted to bother looking at it again!
I agree entirely with Tabatha... oh-so-wholeheartedly. This is NOT
necessary for the document to exist, but it IS, DEFINITELY, customer
service in making things easier to find/read/understand for your
readers/customers. I speak for no one but myself, but IMHO a revision
history has definite value and should ALWAYS be included. Those who are not
interested will find it extremely easy to skip over it.
--
Rodolfo J. Paiz
####@####.####
