julien (Donnerstag, 1. Januar 2009, 20:22): > The last GIMP release was a few monthes ago. If the date is > 2006-xx-yy, then this file has not been updated. What if someone just didn't update the revision entry? Maybe nothing changed, so the file is still up-to-date. But what might the user think when he reads "2006"? > When I review files for v2.6, I always give a new date, even if there > is no change in the file. That sounds reasonable, although it's probably not the intended usage. > > The release date of the gimp-help package is probably more helpful. > > The last gimp-help-package is 2.4, out of date. Yes, and today the (online or offline) manual *is* out of date... > > I still think we should remove the <revhistory> entries, maybe > > adding a <!-- $Id$ --> instead, which will be expanded by SVN to > > <!-- $Id: foo.xml 2666 2009-02-30 21:30:00Z author $ --> > > If you like. But an hour with seconds... :-( If you don't like it, just don't read it. ;-) Ulf
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
