I just noticed that if I update a response I've previously made, as I did a short while ago in Problems after Perl was updated on FreeBSD., this doesn't trigger that thread appearing in [id://Recently Active Threads] if it has already gone stale. Perhaps this is the intended behavior (is it?) and perhaps for minor updates this is the preferred method I should use (is it?)

What if the update is several days later (this was)? What if it seems important (perhaps this one was, as it regards critical update procedures for Perl on FreeBSD if upgrading to Perl 5.8.8 which entered the ports tree 2006-02-20 just in time for the FreeBSD 6.1 prerelease ports freeze)? Should I /msg the OP (assuming they don't get notified automatically)? Reply to myself or the OP instead of doing an update, to increase visibility of the thread? I don't have moderation powers.

As a separate question, should a major Perl version bump in the FreeBSD ports tree go to [id://Perl News], if I was to notice the next one in a more timely way?

  • Comment on Preferred procedures for updating PM nodes

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Preferred procedures for updating PM nodes
by davido (Cardinal) on Mar 02, 2006 at 07:55 UTC

    If you want the thread to show up as recently active, post a followup instead of editing an existing node. More often than not, followups are easier for others to decipher than updates anyway. Discussions at the Monastery are threaded. This is a feature with practical use.


    Dave

[reply]

      Thanks. That seems logical but I was thinking that updating might be preferred because UI-wise the shortest route to get back to a thread seems to be through Nodes You Wrote, where the update form is prominent and inviting. Also I frequently see Update: sections in the nodes of others.

      From that and other context clues I guessed there might be an argument in favor of having fewer but more complete/concise/accurate nodes, and being new, I don't want to assert my way of doing things over what might be considered proper forum etiquette. The [id://PerlMonks FAQ] is clear on most things but I didn't see this sort of thing addressed there.

      Actually, on the whole, the FAQ seems to encourage sensible use of the update form. It doesn't really contradict an assertion of “use the power of threads”, but neither does it actually say this that I could see.

[reply]

        It really depends.

        Within the same day or so, it’s usually sufficiently to update in situ. Your update will be seen anyway. If you specifically want someone who has replied to you prior to the update to see the changes, simply /msg them.

        If you want to update a long dormant node, the best approach is probably:

        1. Add <del></del> tags to the mistaken/obsolete parts of the node.
        2. Post a reply with your update.
          • For root nodes, reply to yourself.
          • For non-root nodes, reply to the node your old node was in reply to, so that the author of that node will be notified of your new reply, should they have chosen that site option.
        3. For the benefit of future visitors, add a notice to the old note, pointing to the new reply.

        Makeshifts last the longest.

[reply]

Back to Perl Monks Discussion