On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 07:27:56 +0100, julien <jm.hard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: [...] > I think it's not necessary to have the dates of all modifications in the > history. Only the last one is useful: "Last review (en;fr)..." > > Changes in the html structure are not interesting for help user, nor > typo corrections, but they may be interesting for the help writer. I agree. Most users will not care about the full revision history of each file. At most, they may be interested in what was done in the last revision or in knowing whether they have the last revision or not. For most users, it may be sufficient to have $Revision$ or $Id$ included somewhere in the generated file. A link to the latest HTML version on docs.gimp.org may also be useful if they want to compare. That link could be visible or hidden in a comment. Or maybe we could have a link to the CVS log of the corresponding source file, like this: http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/gimp-help-2/src/blah/blah.xml?view=log The doc writers have different interests than the doc users. They will probably get most of the revision history from CVS anyway. Besides what is in the CVS log, a complement in the form of a short comment in the file can also be useful (like the current comments), but I think that these comments should be optional when the changes are small and they do not need to be longer than what we have now. Again, take my comments with a pinch of salt as I am not contributing much to the writing effort anyway. -Raphaël _______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
