Who does that server really serve? (2010)

Re:Who does that server really serve? (2010) by ahbyb on Monday October 28, 2019 @01:58PM (#21379630)

I suppose these articles aren't timestamped on purpose, but that is really annoying.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Who does that server really serve? (2010) by tjr on Monday October 28, 2019 @01:59PM (#21379645)

From the bottom of the page:

Updated: $Date: 2018/12/15 14:02:39 $

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Who does that server really serve? (2010) by zemo on Monday October 28, 2019 @04:24PM (#21381228)

the article was published March 18th 2010 in the Boston Review. I don't think the omission is deliberate, I think it is a mistake.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Who does that server really serve? (2010) by ahbyb on Monday October 28, 2019 @02:12PM (#21379797)

Interesting... one does not expect the timestamp to be there!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Who does that server really serve? (2010) by hinkley on Monday October 28, 2019 @04:04PM (#21381020)

I think that's an old CVS/SVN trick that didn't come forward into git.

There's a token pattern you can put into files that gets updated at commit time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Who does that server really serve? (2010) by smhenderson on Monday October 28, 2019 @02:51PM (#21380225)

That was the traditional place to put it in the 90’s IIRC. Although I seem to remember seeing Updated snips under the title as well sometimes.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Who does that server really serve? (2010) by cnst on Monday October 28, 2019 @02:37PM (#21380075)

Did the mention of "Windows Media Player" gave it up? :-)

I think they're written in a neutral tone which is supposed to withstand the test of time, plus edited for corrections, but I do agree that it'd be nice to dates for some context.

(It would appear that the original article was published in 2010.)

[ Parent | on HN ]