Manpages

[rillian]

Quick update to fix two manpage issues I noticed in #25689.

[rust-highfive]

r? @nikomatsakis

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[steveklabnik]

1.2 will be released in july

[rillian]

ITYM August r? @steveklabnik

[alexcrichton]

@bors: r+ bb61b0b rollup

Thanks!

[tshepang]

I always thought the date on manpages was "last edited", not "expected release date". I think "last edited" is also better because some stuff may change between now and 1.2 release.

BTW, do we need to mention the versions? We are going to have to remember updating them every release, even though manpage content has not changed.

[rillian]

I always thought the date on manpages was "last edited", not "expected release date". I think "last edited" is also better because some stuff may change between now and 1.2 release.

It is. The "last edited" and "release date" should also correspond, so I think the question is which of those you think is more likely...

BTW, do we need to mention the versions? We are going to have to remember updating them every release, even though manpage content has not changed.

Not strictly. Many manpages have only a modification date. However, it's useful to know what release the page refers to, so unless we can't maintain them at all, I think the version number should stay.

The real fix to to automate the version and date bump.

[tshepang]

@rillian I don't see a reason why "last edited" and "release date" should correspond. It's misleading. It would be accurate to state the actual edit date, and just leave the version at 1.2.0-dev, and only update that version just before release (or during Beta) to 1.2, after verifying that the manpage is still accurate. So, the version should only be updated if someone verifies its accuracy... it should not be automated.