[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       pear-doc
Subject:    Re: [PEAR-DOC] Re: [PEAR-DEV] PEAR CS Documentation Incorrect?
From:       Ken Guest <ken () linux ! ie>
Date:       2009-09-09 11:31:40
Message-ID: d5f3c22f0909090431j7280fb8xabc7187b02c5aa36 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


Chuck
you're proposed solution makes sense - it is an example after-all...


k.

On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:24 PM, Chuck Burgess <demon.gene@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Mark Wiesemann <wiesemann@php.net> wrote:
>
> > Hannes Magnusson wrote:
> >
> >> As you can see by the highlighting, that example is b0rked.
> >> I assume the documentor was trying to prevent the $Id$ keyword being
> >> expanded by SVN.
> >> This _could_ also be a bug in the application rendering the markup
> >> (PhD)...
> >>
> >> Please file this as a documentation bug report :]
> >>
> >
> > The bug report already exists since March:
> > http://bugs.php.net/bug.php?id=47679
> >
> > Regards,
> > Mark
>
>
>
> I took a look at that PHP bug, as well as looking at both the example in
> the
> docs and its source in standards.xml.  Since both occurrences are examples
> of usage, should it matter if CVS/SVN expands the $Id$ keyword?  If it
> doesn't, then the example shows you what you should write in your @version
> tag... if it does, the example shows what a fully expanded @version tag
> looks like.  Either/both are reasonable example content, IMO.  If there are
> no objections to this line of thinking, then I can solve the bug by simply
> using "$Id$" in those two instances and commit it.
>
> Thoughts?
> --
> CRB
>



-- 
http://blogs.linux.ie/kenguest/


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]