discuss: Volonteer lacks or(inc) TLDP on the turn ?


Previous by date: 7 Mar 2005 13:24:26 -0000 Re: LDP Committee?, Martin Wheeler
Next by date: 7 Mar 2005 13:24:26 -0000 Re: TLDP Tech, G Ferguson / LDP
Previous in thread: 7 Mar 2005 13:24:26 -0000 Re: Volonteer lacks or(inc) TLDP on the turn ?, Martin Wheeler
Next in thread:

Subject: Re: Volonteer lacks or(inc) TLDP on the turn ?
From: Machtelt Garrels ####@####.####
Date: 7 Mar 2005 13:24:26 -0000
Message-Id: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0503071319440.31970-100000@cobra.xalasys.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Sun, 6 Mar 2005, Martin Wheeler wrote:

> > When they become too long, you can just put them in comment (between <!--
> > and -->.  Still, when submitting, there would be a change in the document
> > and it would be marked as recently updated.
>
> Are we to understand that this is official policy?
>
> If so, at what point does/may one start putting the rev. history into
> comment space?

I was just a suggestion.  I've been looking at my own ever-growing
revision histories, I thought maybe I'd keep the most recent 5 entries and
put the rest in comment.

> (Personally, I'd put the whole lot into comments.  But is this not
> defeating the purpose of having the revision history in the first place?
> _Why_ do we have the revision history in the document?
>
> Is it necessary?

It is easy to have it.  When Giridhar and I write the weekly news, we
check the revision history to see if there is anything we can say about
updated documents.  Else, we have to check the CVS and hope that the
author uses our CVS.  If the author does not use our CVS and has no
revision history, we can not promote the new version.

A reader might be interested for instance when they have just printed out
a guide, and then they see a week later that there is a new release.  If
the new version only consists of a couple of corrections of typos, it is
not necessary to print out the doc again.

A reader might also be interested if they use a certain document a lot.
An update is released, they can check the revision history and go directly
to the relevant part(s).

So skipping the revision history is not a good idea, imho.

Tille.

- --
My Penguin, my freedom.		http://tille.xalasys.com
Books:				http://writers.fultus.com/garrels

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCLFdBsIIUbMXbBA8RAgidAJsHrBwLvnBjbJLFDexHExszq6cUBwCgoeWI
kPzrx56FS0IQwZAUB58+kKc=
=tQlt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Previous by date: 7 Mar 2005 13:24:26 -0000 Re: LDP Committee?, Martin Wheeler
Next by date: 7 Mar 2005 13:24:26 -0000 Re: TLDP Tech, G Ferguson / LDP
Previous in thread: 7 Mar 2005 13:24:26 -0000 Re: Volonteer lacks or(inc) TLDP on the turn ?, Martin Wheeler
Next in thread:


  ©The Linux Documentation Project, 2014. Listserver maintained by dr Serge Victor on ibiblio.org servers. See current spam statz.