Matthew Burgess wrote: > Richard A Downing wrote: > >> I prefer a straight forward chronological list of changes without all >> the sections: Upgraded", "Added" and "Removed". > > > Proposals generally are better received when they contain rationale (and > no, "I prefer" doesn't count!) :)
It should do. I'm a reader of the book. Don't you want to please your readers? ;-) Otherwise why are you writing it? I bet I've read it cover-to-cover more often than almost anyone else on the list today too. > Seriously though, I think it provides a nice clear one-stop-shop > overview of the major changes to the book for our audience. > Additionally, with the changes that Archaic and Jim made to the XML, > it's much easier to keep up to date too. > > As I am writing this, Tush's email just came through. Maybe moving this > information to a "What's New" page would be useful, leaving the far too > inquisitive reader to peruse the more detailed changelog if they so > desire. As it's all related to changes made to the book though, I > personally think they should remain together. Obviously it'd be much > easier to convince me if you both provided reasons *why* you don't like > the current format. I check out and render the LFS trunk (and Cross-LFS, BLFS, GCC4 )every day - sometime more often. Then I read the changlog to find what has been changed. I am uninterested in what versions are current. I am only interested in what has changed and why. So I would like this information in front of the status information (I call it that 'cos it the status of the differences between this SVN pull and the last published version - If you see what I mean - rather than the change from the last pull ). It's not a big thing, but I was surprised to find that I wasn't alone thinking this - hence the request. R. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
