On 26 Jun 2011, at 18:10, Serge Wroclawski wrote: > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Tobias Knerr <o...@tobias-knerr.de> wrote: >> Richard Fairhurst wrote: >>> M∡rtin Koppenhoefer wrote: >>>> Yes, but is there a point of doing this within the same changeset? >>> >>> Yes, of course there is. If you're using an online editor you should save >>> early and save often. When the user chooses to start/finish a changeset has >>> no bearing on that. >> >> The problem is that "saving" and "committing" are, in this case, the >> same action. > > This is an easy conclusion to come to. The way I've come to think > about it is that a changeset is merely a grouping of changes, and OSM > has no concept of a commit. > > In an .07 (if/whenever that happens), I'd love to see a new concept > called a "transaction", which would be a commit. And then a changeset > might just be a collection of transactions.
If you use the diff uploads, then it is already the case that a changeset could be called a collection of transactions, though the transaction id is never exposed or stored. (Technically the transaction ids and status are used internally for the generation of the diffs). Shaun _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
