On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:19:48AM -0700, Chris Muller wrote:
OTOH, Lint barks about methods with no timestamp. Maybe this is an opportunity to "clean up" methods with no timestamp; i.e., since there isn't any reasonable historical information anyway, this may be reason to put in a timestamp of the person running the script (again, only for methods with no timestamp currently).
No.
Any method with a nil timestamp should left that way, or failing this should be attributed to the dawn of time, which appears to have been 1901-01-01 in some unspecified time zone possible rooted in California, or perhaps in Greenwich, England. Personally, I think they should be left as nil, which retains the scope of the original ambiguity.
What should absolutely positively not be done is to attibute the original methods to initials and time stamps other than those of the actual authors. This is not merely confusing, it is disrespectful of the original authors' work.
Dave