On Thu Nov 13 2014 at 8:27:08 AM Brian Wolff <bawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2014 11:43 AM, "Derric Atzrott" <datzr...@alizeepathology.com> > wrote: > > > > > Indeed - I am somewhat surprised by James's firm opposition. > > > > I tend to agree with James on this one in that if the edit summaries > > are to be modified then they need a revision history. > > > > > Typos in edit summary are fixed by releasing an errata corrige in a > > > subsequent dummy edit. > > > > I question whether or not the ability to change edit summaries is > > really a needed feature though. I would prefer the approach that > > Nemo recommend of making a dummy edit. > > > > For me it's less about vandalism et al. and more about the principle > > of revision tracking and audit trails. When you make an edit that > > revision is fixed and should not be able to be modified. This is > > one of the core principles that makes wikis work. > > > > Thank you, > > Derric Atzrott > > > > > > > > +1. An edit summary represents something at a specific point in time. Its > important to know the context of an edit at that time. Editing edit > summaries allows someone to revise the context. > > For comparision, how many revision control systems allow editing commit > messages. > > Git does. Of course it comes with all kinds of warning messages about how if you're working with others this is a terrible thing to do :) -Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
