As Bill, I think hard-coded modification date is preferable, as it
allows minor modification (e.g. fixing typo). Of course, it depends on
the semantics you espect on the date.
I also vote for hardcoded version or date information in a file. If you
take the modification time of the file, it might be a bit confusing if
an identical file appears in another branch of Axiom. Those two files
will probably have different times and all you see in the .dvi is that
they seem to be different.
William Sit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Come to think of it, each pamphlet file should include a revision
history, with dates, much like code. So we should have latex macros
\creationdate, \revisiondates, and \filedate (which may be included in
\revisiondates).
Doesn't that revision history belong to the changesets of the Source
Code Management system, whichever it is?
I am also wondering why we would use some SCM and then hardcode
\creationdate, etc. You can use, for example, "svn log FILENAME" and get
all the wonderful history.
Ralf
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
