On Tue, 18 May 1999, Amir Karger wrote:
(about '$' signs)
> 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.)"
Yes, something like that, if you feel that usefull too.
And the traductor will have the priviledge and the pleasure to remove
all them in the line that comes from the original doc.
(about $Log$ keyword)
> 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.)
They would be more confusing than usefull. That's true.
>
> -Amir
>
>
>
Pierre-Henri BOINNARD
email:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
