The top answer of the top question of the tag currently states that rubber is not actively developed. While it may be true that rubber development was in a hiatus around the time the answer was posted, it is no longer true that rubber is unmaintained. In fact, the latest release (1.5.1) was published only two months ago.

I submitted an edit updating the answer, but unfortunately it was rejected. The reasons given where

This edit deviates from the original intent of the post. Even edits that must make drastic changes should strive to preserve the goals of the post's owner.

I'm not sure if I would agree with this. The main part of the answer (the original intent if you want), the list of differences between rubber and latexmk, was not edited at all.

What is the rationale behind rejecting my edits? How does keeping outdated parts of an answer improve tex.SE? Do we really want to drive away people from, an IMHO excellent, software by keeping outdated statements in an answer?

  • 2
    I was asking me the same! I actually bookmarked the post to redo the edit, just did not yet find the time. – samcarter Nov 23 at 16:31
  • I guess that this is part of a bigger problem: what if the circumstances change. Suppose someone gave an answer based on packages that were available at that time, as discussed here. Some time later a new package appears, which allows one to give a much more elegant answer. Should then the old answer be unaccepted in favor of the more elegant answer. I like your suggestion to just edit the outdated answer, and wonder if this should be the way to go. – marmot Nov 23 at 21:23
  • 1
    Actually that is not what I tried to suggest. Stackexchange sites have been fine with the fact that for some questions the accepted answer is potentially superseded by a newer different answer, eventually by votes. But that is a different problem. My question was about to strict (or unreasonable, if you will) suggested edit reviews, which is IMHO a problem on some stackexchange sites, e.g. here (I hope the tex.SE community does not follow superuser's lead). – Flow Nov 23 at 21:42
  • 6
    @Flow I'd like to apologise, as my judgement reviewing your edit was not correct. I remember when reviewing your edit I had a little doubt on what to do so, in favour of preserving the content of the original answer, I chose to reject. Before rejecting I even googled "rubber LaTeX" to check if the situation had changed but the results weren't what I'd expect, if you know what I mean... Reviewing other people's post is not an exact science, as we never know their intent, but if any time you feel that a review was incorrect you can ping us in the chat and we'll take a closer look :) – Phelype Oleinik Nov 24 at 14:56
  • I think it would be better to add a new text to the given answer reflecting the new situation. The advantage is one can see the old answer and the corrected part ... – Kurt Nov 28 at 1:35
up vote 13 down vote accepted

I think the issue is that the answer started with the proviso then moved on to the comparison, rather than the other way around. That made it look like the 'no development' part was the most important aspect.

As you say, the question is about a feature comparison, for which the 'health warning' is clearly secondary. As such, I feel the edit was fine.

  • 2
    Thanks for your prompt response. I think it is only fair to inform @phelype-oleinik and sebastiano that the edit was ultimately accepted for the reasons discussed. – Flow Nov 23 at 17:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .