On Fri, 2011-04-01 at 17:41 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
> I'm not all that curious about the fact that they put their plugin at the
> top, out of chronological order, again.
>
> What I'm curious about is the change of the "Added" date, to 8 months
> earlier. Is it a coincidence that after I put them back in chronological
> order, if I had used the new date they provided, they would have been
> the first listed commercial plugin, and the first with a logo?
My guess, just as yours, would be the previous date to be correct. But
rather than bringing it up here, you might want to ask them directly.
(After all, the date change can be found in the history, so it would be
rather dumb to try to "fake" that for a supposedly higher position.)
However, you just had to stir up the ants...
By obligating every plugin author to edit the wiki, and in this case
even move it back to the active plugin's page, you almost encouraged
them to revise the data and description.
FWIW, a simple ping, with a one-time pong to you acknowledging the
plugin's active status would have done, too. And caused much less work,
for both you and me.
That said -- thanks for caring about the plugins page. :)
--
char *t="\10pse\0r\0dtu\0.@ghno\x4e\xc8\x79\xf4\xab\x51\x8a\x10\xf4\xf4\xc4";
main(){ char h,m=h=*t++,*x=t+2*h,c,i,l=*x,s=0; for (i=0;i<l;i++){ i%8? c<<=1:
(c=*++x); c&128 && (s+=h); if (!(h>>=1)||!t[s+h]){ putchar(t[s]);h=m;s=0; }}}
