jhardlin (Friday, 04. June 2010) > In git log, file history is scattered and difficult to find. Ok, that's true. But I use 'git log' only if I'm really interested in some special information (e.g.: "Which idiot wrote this nonsense? Oh god, it was me again..."). > Every po file is signed. Why not xml? What do mean with "signed"? The header? > History tag exists in the xml language. Why not use it? If I remember correctly we used to (mis)use <revhistory> elements in the multi-language XML files, but in a rather strange and useless way. Adding <revhistory>s again and using them according to the examples in "DocBook: The Definitive Guide" may be better than using our selfmade "section history" comments (we should suppress the output to HTML, IMHO). But isn't one <revhistory> for every XML file an overkill? > Sure, history is not necessary to work on a xml file. More interesting IMHO: does it *help* you if you work on an XML file? > [...] I am not young, Oh, so we are two! :-) > and I find pleasant to have all the history of the file summarized > at the beginning without needing to browse all the log over. Try this shell command: for d in appendix concepts dialogs filters glossary introduction \ menus toolbox tutorial using do find src/$d -type f -name '*.xml' | head -n 20 | tail -n 3 done | xargs sed -e '/[Ss]ection [Hh]istory/,/-->/!d' This displays some more or less randomly picked section history comments, and IMHO most of them are totally useless. I still think we should remove them or find an alternative way to provide some meta information. Bye, 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
