On 10/16/07, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 16/10/2007, RLS <evendell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/15/07, Ron Ritzman
<ritzman(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/15/07, Gwern Branwen
<gwern0(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Now now. Let's be fair: it *could* have been
a null edit.
If a "null edit" is what I think it is then shouldn't the summary be
"didn't make a change"?
I think the point is "made a change" tells us it *wasn't* a null edit.
:)
Indeed. The summary contained 1 bit (as in, binary digit) of
information. Not completely useless, but as close as you can get
without being.
Actually, the software won't save if the content is exactly identical to the
previous version. So, "made a change" is a prerequisite for saving (even if
the change is as simple as playing with the amount of whitespace in an
article). In other words, the edit summary still contained no information.
-Robert Rohde