in reply to Re: Persistence framework
in thread Persistence framework

Age not being a function of 'up-to-date' is actually a problem that comes up with more than just Perl modules.

I used to maintain paper documentation, in the form of handouts that my university's computer lab maintained on how to use pine, netscape, word perfect, and the other applications that we supported. The problem was that people just didn't like getting a document that said 'last modified (three years ago)'. The commands to unix and VMS didn't change, so we had no reason to change the documentation. We ended up putting on a 'Last Verified' date on everything, and reviewing all documentation twice a year.

I try to make it a point on any sort of content management system that I maintain -- not only providing a 'last modified' but also a 'last verfied' or 'last reviewed', or something similar. (and of course, who modified or reviewed it, but I don't necessarily show that to the general users).

ps. Net::Telnet has only had 2 updates in over 7 years. It must suck. Even Net::Gopher was updated last year.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Persistence framework
by cog (Parson) on May 03, 2005 at 12:04 UTC
    The problem was that people just didn't like getting a document that said 'last modified (three years ago)'.

    Risking the possibility of becoming slightly off-topic:

    This is what made me search my modules on the CPAN by release date, get the oldest ones and do one or two minor updates. It's sad, but it's true: if the module had a new version recently, than the author must be working on it...

    It they only knew what lies beneath them... muahahahahah!