1 |
On Wed, Sep 03, 2008 at 06:19:53PM +0200, Sven Vermeulen wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Jan Kundrát <jkt@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> > Camille Huot wrote: |
4 |
> >> |
5 |
> >> As a workaround, I would suggest to bump the date when an old document |
6 |
> >> has been checked, tested and certified with current material. |
7 |
> > |
8 |
> > If I were yoswink, I'd kill you for such a change. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> OMG they killed Cam !! |
11 |
|
12 |
Not yet. But if someone touch the date for such proposes I will start |
13 |
with the fingers and finish with the toes =). |
14 |
|
15 |
If we want to add metadata about checked/certified then we should use a |
16 |
separate tag. The date tag is for what it is. |
17 |
|
18 |
> |
19 |
> And, to be on-topic: I'd rather keep the current system. Using a |
20 |
> "touch" way is imo pointless and more prone to issues (for instance, |
21 |
> fix a language typo on an outdated document shouldn't bump the date |
22 |
> nor version as the document is still outdated). |
23 |
|
24 |
No way of use "touch" for this *shrug*. I've ordered to my slaves that: |
25 |
http://dev.gentoo.org/~yoswink/tmp/prepare-the-thing.jpg |
26 |
|
27 |
> Removing the date will silence people who say documents are outdated |
28 |
> (when they are not) but will probably create voices that would like to |
29 |
> see a "last modified" date. |
30 |
|
31 |
Yup, fix a problem creating another is a bad way to go. |
32 |
|
33 |
> In my opinion, documents should always have a "last modified" date. If |
34 |
> you want some sort of document lifecycle, you might want to introduce |
35 |
> a revision period (for instance, every vital doc should be revised |
36 |
> every 3 months, every other doc every year) and add in two headers: |
37 |
> "last revision" and "next revision date"... |
38 |
|
39 |
This belongs to another thread/discussion to me, since it seems like a |
40 |
new feature. Maybe too much to fix this problem. |
41 |
|
42 |
-- |
43 |
Jose Luis Rivero <yoswink@g.o> |
44 |
Gentoo/Doc Gentoo/Alpha |