On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 07:22:52PM +0200, Pierre-Henri Boinnard wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 1999, Amir Karger wrote:
> ...
> > That might be getting too complicated. How about a footnote or note inset
> > that reads: "Revision $Revision$ of file $RCSfile$, last checked in by
> > $Author$ on $Date$."?
> Better. To bad for the '$' signs. What about having a warning not to
> remove them, to avoid breaking the rcs behaviour.
A footnote to a footnote? A note inside a note? Well, I guess you could say,
"Revision.... (The preceding sentence was generated automatically. Please do
not edit it or it will break.)"
> > Right. Although the date might be a bit misleading. Just because someone
> > fixed a typo, doesn't mean that the document is really "up to date" for
> > that date. Maybe we shouldn't have a date on the document, since people can
> > look in the footnote for the version information.
> That is where the $Log$ keyword might be usefull. And we are closer
> and closer to the revision history inclusion :)
I was thinking of that. But how useful would that history be? here are the
last few logs from the Tutorial:
----------------------------
Changed -> to \menuseparator
----------------------------
Made sure the paper size is 'default'
----------------------------
Updates to Intro and Tutorial from John&Amir
----------------------------
Amir's tutorial update (with patch).
----------------------------
Spellchecked and cleaned up English docs.
----------------------------
Removed two bugs from BUGS, made sure that all documents except BUGS and
Intro use the book class. Removed the oldish HowDoI-.lyx, too.
----------------------------
I don't know, they look pretty useless to me. Many changes are spelling
errors, etc. and people rarely write real descriptions of the changes they
make (that's what a changelog is for and we don't really have one for the
docs) and you can always use CVSweb if you really need that information.
(Also sometimes people check in > 1 doc, and then the log could be
confusing.)
-Amir
