| 1 |
Xavier Neys wrote: |
| 2 |
> Some doc dev complained that comparing the dates would not work if two |
| 3 |
> updates occurred in the same day. True. Comparing the versions is a bit |
| 4 |
> more complex and involves two extra scans of the handbooks (the original |
| 5 |
> and the translated one). It's fast enough IMO. My <300Mhz test box still |
| 6 |
> delivers handbook chapters under the second. Note that it is still not |
| 7 |
> 100% fool-proof. If a chapter disappears from the original, the mention |
| 8 |
> of a more recent original would not appear on the translations because |
| 9 |
> the xsl scans the original and compares the version with the version of |
| 10 |
> the file that is included at the same position (part/chapter-wise) in |
| 11 |
> the translation. That has not happened yet. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I'm not going to parse the version strings to try to quantify the amount |
| 14 |
> of changes that occurred because 1) versions are not structured 2) a |
| 15 |
> single bump could mean a small or a big change, and vice-versa for more |
| 16 |
> bumps. Displaying the date of the original should be a good indication. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Thanks, I like this idea. Am I correct when I assume that it will check |
| 19 |
both handbook-$ARCH.xml and hb-$foo-$bar.xml when displaying only one |
| 20 |
chapter and all files for current $ARCH when doing ?full=1 ? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Cheers, |
| 23 |
-jkt |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth |
Archives