[publican-list] Proposed changes to Book_Info.xml

[Karsten 'quaid' Wade]

On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 14:59 +1000, Joshua Wulf wrote:
> David O'Brien wrote:
> > I don't mind the idea of using the build date. I actually prefer that 
> > to using the Revision History. Build dates (generally) don't lie, but 
> > writers are responsible for maintaining the Revision History file. I 
> > think I know which is more reliable  :)
> >
> Setting the date of publication at build time:
> 
> Pluses:
> 
> I don't know how many times I've built a new version of a book and 
> forgotten to go into yet another xml file and update the date.
> 
> Minuses:
> 
> Books which are unmodified display a different date if they are rebuilt.

Thus the showing of a different date is not a guarantee of changed
content, but is a clue.  With shared modular content, it's also possible
that a rebuild does capture new content.

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr.
Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com
Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org
gpg key : AD0E0C41
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/publican-list/attachments/20080811/3c02d4fa/attachment.sig>