Comment 4 for bug 192202
Revision history for this message
| Dean Sas (dsas) wrote Re: [Bug 192202] Re: copyright dates not being updated | #4 |
© 2004
Canonical Ltd.
•
Terms of use
•
Data privacy
•
Contact Launchpad Support
•
Blog
•
Careers
•
System status
•
73416ba
(Get the code!)
Neal McBurnett wrote:
> I still think that marking the version information for in-development
> documentation would be very helpful.
> Surely we want people to be able to comment on this documentation in
> ways that make it clear what version they are commenting on, so the
> writer can easily tell if the issue has already been addressed, etc.
>
> It seems that every other way we have of delivering content to people,
> we make it clear what the version is, via command line options, dpkg -l,
> wiki reversion info, etc.
>
> So why not mark version information when we make documentation easily
> available for comment?
I'd have thought it was self-evident that the draft documentation is up
to date. Perhaps it would be useful to include the bzr revision number
somewhere.
> I think this is not a tiny issue - see also e.g. https:/
> Server Guide draft has higher Google rank than released version.
That's orthogonal.
> This is also true for the stuff at help.ubuntu.com. At least that says
> what release it is for, but not anything that would tell a user or
> documentation volunteer easily whether or not an update had been
> deployed, or where to find the source code for exactly what they are
> looking at.
I think people would always assume it's always up to date. If it isn't,
it should be.
> Is it hard to add some version information or a link to get it?
> If someone wanted to submit a patch to resolve this, what would need patching and where is the source for it?
Well it'd probably want to be website specific so may be one of these files:
teamstuff/
teamstuff/
You can get the code here:
https:/
Cheers,
Dean