discuss: revhistory question
Subject:
Re: revhistory question
From:
"Greg Ferguson" ####@####.####
Date:
1 Feb 2001 14:15:44 -0000
Message-Id: <10102010911.ZM12354@hoop.timonium.sgi.com>
On Feb 1, 10:11am, Roel van Meer wrote:
> Subject: revhistory question
> Hello,
>
> i was wondering -- Is it necessary to keep a <REVISION> section in the
> <REVHISTORY> for each revision of the document, or only for the last
> (one/few). It seems logical to me to keep them all there, but i wonder
> how much information it really contributes to the reader. i think it
> only makes the document harder to read.
>
> Any suggestions?
A suggestion:
1. *always* denote the current revision
2. denote all *major* revisions
Example:
<revnumber>3.4 -->> First entry always reflects the current release
...
<revnumber>3.0
...
<revnumber>2.0
...
<revnumber>1.0
...
Dropping off some of the earlier revisions would certainly
be acceptable, esp. if the list gets too lengthy.
r,
--
Greg Ferguson - s/w engr / mtlhd | gferg at sgi.com
SGI Tech Pubs - http://techpubs.sgi.com/ |
Linux Doc Project - http://www.linuxdoc.org/ | gferg at metalab.unc.edu
