Re: [s-d] [s-b] The Great Reset of Nweek 112

["Peter Cooper Jr." <pete+bnomic@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Joel Uckelman wrote:
> Thus spake "Peter Cooper Jr.":
>> Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> > 1. Why do we need revision numbers on some documents? The wiki
>> > remembers older versions anyway, and the rules page would like nicer
>> > without them.
>>
>> Since we've always had them :)
>> I don't really know.
>
> If you look back at Berserker Nomic and then A Nomic, you'll see that
> I used revision numbers in order to keep histories for rules. Mainly
> this was because (1) other, even earlier nomics did this, and (2)
> it made the rule/revision combo a unique identifier. I wasn't using
> anything so spiffy as a wiki back then, so I had to assign numbers
> by hand, and walk uphill in the snow both ways.

Well, I agree it'd be nice to refer to particular version of rules, but we
haven't used a consistent scheme for numbering rules (after going to a
section-rule format after the first reset on nweek 85 (4/11/2005)), and
basically started our number of rules and props over then, and with this
reset. Perhaps we need to refer to the game's eras when looking at rules &
props?a

-- 
Peter C.
_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss