On 03/22, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 12:42 -0400, [email protected] wrote: > > On 03/21, Karsten Bräckelmann wrote: > > > > > > > Please update your description of your SpamAssassin plugin on > > > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/CustomPlugins to change the line > > > > > > "Updated: Old" to "Updated: YYYY-MM-DD" to represent today's date. > > > > > > > > > > I don't think the "updated" date should represent today, if that is > > > > > not > > > > > the date of the last update. > > > > > > > > I do. I don't care when the plugin was last modified. I do care when > > > > it > > > > was last... confirmed not horribly broken. So "updated" might not be > > > > the best wording. > > That confirmation would be good. But that probably involves some > volunteer to actually check it. Rather than base it off on the author to > visit his creature every once in a while, without confirming the code.
That would certainly be nice, but I think moving stuff to CustomPluginsUnmaintained when the listed contact isn't up for updating the "Updated" date is a substantial improvement over what the page had been. And after this initial cleanup, I may be up for testing everything that people have provided a new date for. > > I did create a new entry, there was no "Updated:" before. What would you > > prefer it to be? > > Oh, OK. Though, isn't that pretty much what Status is supposed to be? > Possibly with some notes regarding version compatibility. I initially thought it would be good to just include the date in the Status field, but the Status field has a pretty specific definition that doesn't actually seem to fit well, and I thought it would be cleaner to add a new field. > I really don't see the point of this timestamp. How often do you want > the authors to update them? Every 6 months? This is six *years* of cruft to slog through. > What is the exact purpose of an "author was > last here" info anyway? An easier way of differentiating between what should be on CustomPlugins vs. CustomPluginsUnmaintained than testing them all, until someone volunteers to test them all. > A Table of Contents with relative links would be way cool. Some > structuring, rather than chronological order (which some didn't maintain > anyway, but added their plugin at the top instead). And perhaps a > consistent naming scheme. Plus, of course, clearly marking or moving > stuff that is not compatible with recent versions. Fixed the chronological order (from wiki logs). What fun. The only other changes I was thinking of was breaking it up into free and commercial plugins, and stripping all instances of "Mail::SpamAssassin::Plugin::". -- "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." - Emiliano Zapata, Mexican Revolution Leader http://www.ChaosReigns.com
