On 5/19/25 13:22, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
Greg <curtys...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2025-05-16, Jonathan Dowland <j...@debian.org> wrote:
On Thu May 15, 2025 at 2:33 PM BST, Dan Ritter wrote:
The most prominent issue I can see is that there is no unified
sense of chronology. That is, I can look at a page and not have
any idea whether it is correct for current Stable.
That's what I said more succinctly. Keep the wikis up to date (I
thought it went without saying "for Debian stable," though there's
always a myriad of ways to be misunderstood but normally only one way
to be so).
It's not quite the same. What Dan is asking for is that each wiki page
should identify when it was updated and for which named release(s) of
Debian it is valid. So even if it's out of date it may be useful to
somebody, or it may be possible to deduce what's wrong for the current
stable in some circumstances.
Thank you. That is useful feedback, and I agree that we should be
clear about what version of Debian a given page (or section)
applies to. (And we should default to documenting Debian stable,
IMHO)
I suggested we establish a standard way to do this as part of
someone else's efforts to write fresh content guidelines¹. I should
pick that effort back up and finish it off.
[1]
https://wiki.debian.org/MaythamAlsudany/DraftContentGuidelines/Discussion
typically I see this in the footer:
MaythamAlsudany/DraftContentGuidelines/Discussion (last modified
2025-05-16 09:16:47)
in my opinion should be at or near the Header
