On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 05:59:48PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Sunday, 3 December 2006 at 23:15:25 -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Friday, 1 December 2006 at 14:09:25 +0100, Sascha Wildner wrote: > >>> M. Warner Losh wrote: > >>>> content changes, but not typos or formatting, is when it should be > >>>> bumpped. Also on MFC, the date used is the one in -current, not the > >>>> date that you MFC. This makes it hard to automate. > >>> > >>> Where exactly is the benefit in bumping/having dates on manpages at all? > >>> > >>> I mean, does anyone actually notice that the date changed (by > >>> remembering the date of the previous version) and think, "oh great, > >>> there's been a content change, let's check that out"? > >> > >> Good point. Clearly it's worthwhile knowing what version of the man > >> page you have, if only to know whether it's up to date. But the > >> $FreeBSD$ tag would give more information there. > > > > <mode=bde> > > $FreeBSD$ or $Date$ would pessimize the display of the date by > > uglifying the presentation to the user. > > </mode> > > Only if you were to display it in its entirety. Macros exist to > convert them into correct dates.
There's no problem here to solve; move along, people :)
Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere
pgphmu48uUhT8.pgp
Description: PGP signature
