Gentoo Archives: gentoo-doc

From: Xavier Neys <neysx@g.o>
To: gentoo-doc@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-doc] [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents
Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2005 15:25:28
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-doc] [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents by "Jan Kundrát"
Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Xavier Neys wrote: > >>Some doc dev complained that comparing the dates would not work if two >>updates occurred in the same day. True. Comparing the versions is a bit >>more complex and involves two extra scans of the handbooks (the original >>and the translated one). It's fast enough IMO. My <300Mhz test box still >>delivers handbook chapters under the second. Note that it is still not >>100% fool-proof. If a chapter disappears from the original, the mention >>of a more recent original would not appear on the translations because >>the xsl scans the original and compares the version with the version of >>the file that is included at the same position (part/chapter-wise) in >>the translation. That has not happened yet. >> >>I'm not going to parse the version strings to try to quantify the amount >>of changes that occurred because 1) versions are not structured 2) a >>single bump could mean a small or a big change, and vice-versa for more >>bumps. Displaying the date of the original should be a good indication. > > > Thanks, I like this idea. Am I correct when I assume that it will check > both handbook-$ARCH.xml and hb-$foo-$bar.xml when displaying only one > chapter and all files for current $ARCH when doing ?full=1 ?
Almost. Full handbook: all files are checked TOC (part and/or chap = 0), master file is checked Chapter, hb-$foo-$bar.xml is checked, checking the master files as well would be trivial, but why should they be checked? Cheers, -- / Xavier Neys \_ Gentoo Documentation Project / French & Internationalisation Lead \ /\ -- gentoo-doc@g.o mailing list


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-doc] [RFC] Marking unmaintained documents "Jan Kundrát" <jkt@g.o>