On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 4:16 AM Jason Cobb via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 7/24/22 20:04, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2022 at 12:56 AM secretsnail9 via agora-official > > <agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> 8821~ nix, Jason, secretsnail 3.0 More Intuitive Rule Changes > > Opinion of the rulekeepor sought: > > > > In all previous history, the phrase: > > > > "Retitle rule X to Y, and Amend it to read..." would be listed as two > > separate historical annotations in the FLR, I'm quite concerned that > > changing this to: > > > > "Amed Rule X by retitling it Y and changing it to read..." would > > greatly obscure historical, reconstruction, as the amendment would be > > a single action (retitling and text change on a single line of > > history). > > > > Often, when looking at historical annotations to figure out which > > proposal changed what, retitles are milestones which signify > > significant change in the function of the rule. Would this > > information be obscured/lost under this proposal? > > > I'd be inclined to record it as a single amendment, but I could > potentially include "amended (title)" or "amended (text/title)"? > > In any case that would require me to write more code *grumble grumble*.
Thanks! Yeah, I would personally prefer that retitling remain its own thing, maybe a way to do it while fixing the error potential is to add a parenthetical to the Retitle list item to note that "amend its title to" is synonymous with "retitle", and/or (if absolutely necessary, though I don't think it is) state that "amend the title of Rule N to X and its text to Y" is two sequential rule changes?
