1 |
On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Jan Kundrát <jkt@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> Camille Huot wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> As a workaround, I would suggest to bump the date when an old document |
5 |
>> has been checked, tested and certified with current material. |
6 |
> |
7 |
> If I were yoswink, I'd kill you for such a change. |
8 |
|
9 |
OMG they killed Cam !! |
10 |
|
11 |
And, to be on-topic: I'd rather keep the current system. Using a |
12 |
"touch" way is imo pointless and more prone to issues (for instance, |
13 |
fix a language typo on an outdated document shouldn't bump the date |
14 |
nor version as the document is still outdated). |
15 |
|
16 |
Removing the date will silence people who say documents are outdated |
17 |
(when they are not) but will probably create voices that would like to |
18 |
see a "last modified" date. |
19 |
|
20 |
In my opinion, documents should always have a "last modified" date. If |
21 |
you want some sort of document lifecycle, you might want to introduce |
22 |
a revision period (for instance, every vital doc should be revised |
23 |
every 3 months, every other doc every year) and add in two headers: |
24 |
"last revision" and "next revision date"... |
25 |
|
26 |
Or something completely different :-) |
27 |
|
28 |
Wkr, |
29 |
Sven Vermeulen |