5 messages in org.freebsd.freebsd-docRe: Adding a publication date to the ...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Udo Erdelhoff | Jan 20, 2003 12:54 pm | |
| Bruce A. Mah | Jan 21, 2003 8:50 am | |
| Udo Erdelhoff | Jan 21, 2003 11:17 am | |
| Bruce A. Mah | Jan 22, 2003 6:32 am | |
| Udo Erdelhoff | Jan 22, 2003 9:26 am |
| Subject: | Re: Adding a publication date to the installation instructions | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Bruce A. Mah (bm...@FreeBSD.ORG) | |
| Date: | Jan 21, 2003 8:50:47 am | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-doc | |
If memory serves me right, Udo Erdelhoff wrote:
I just noticed that the installation instructions do not carry their publication date (read: $FreeBSD$) inside them. This makes it rather hard to check if the rendered version for the web site is still up to date (comapred to the SGML version, that is). Proposed fix:
Hi Udo--
This works well in the case that the content is contained in one file (such as for the readme, errata, or early adopter's guide). The problem with the installation instructions is that the content is scattered throughout several files and there is not any single $FreeBSD$ tag you (or anybody) can use to give the latest revision date for the document as a whole.
One possibility might be to reorganize the content into a single file, *then* you can use the $FreeBSD$ tag in a meaningful way. I did this for the release notes some months ago. I *think* you can do this for the installation guide as well, and I wouldn't object to somebody doing this if it can be made to work. It can't be done for the hardware notes, because there are some MD files.
Cheers,
Bruce.
PS. The installation guide is a bloody mess. At one point I thought it'd be cool to fold all of the MD content into the Handbook (so it could cover all architectures), and then somehow build the install chapter from the Handbook as a part of the release documentation set. I gave up, but that shouldn't prevent someone else from taking a shot at it.