2 ms·
Addendum: don’t rely on your git/wiki/document-system for tracking the timestamp. “This was accurate on $DATE” has a very different meaning than “this document
by skrebbel 3y ago
Addendum: don’t rely on your git/wiki/document-system for tracking the timestamp. “This was accurate on $DATE” has a very different meaning than “this document was last edited on $DATE”. It might be 2 years out of date but someone fixed a typo last week.
Just put a sentence/textbox somewhere with the date. If someone does a proper update, they will proudly edit that sentence too.
- dspillett 3y ago> It might be 2 years out of date but someone fixed a typo last week Or it might have had a fuller update last week, but from older information (perhaps going from years old to months old) because it is information that has a high processing latency (like census data). Though in this case the date probably belongs in the text with the timestamp representing the edit date, either way both times should be made clear.
- LelouBil 3y agoFrench government websites do this for help articles, they have a "last edited" and a "last verified" date on each article
- skrebbel 3y agoLove it!
- kiliancs 3y agoI've found that keeping a changelog as part of my design docs and similar is a good way to keep engineers, even across teams, confident that what they are looking at is up to date and a good reference, and the right document to update if necessary.
- alanbernstein 3y agoAnd sometimes there is a "let's switch source control systems", which results in a wall of inaccessibility in the history.