| 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fix a language typo on an outdated document shouldn't bump the date |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nor version as the document is still outdated).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Removing the date will silence people who say documents are outdated |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 |
Archives