On 01/17/2011 06:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
If you want a high level of accuracy when trying to
added a particular fact (such as "Overall, the city is relatively
flat", which may have started out as "Paris, in general, contains very
few changes in elevation"), you really need to combine automated tools
with human understanding.
Our current "diff" is not perfect, it often performs worse
than the GNU "wdiff" (word diff) utility. But it is still useful.
What I'm calling for is a way to filter out (or group together)
some of the edits from the history view that had nothing at all
to do with the specified sentence or paragraph. This shouldn't
be impossible to do. It need not be perfect. The more
irrelevant edits it can filter out, the better.
I'm a "Unix programmer" from the days of RCS, which is
functionally equivalent to the version control in MediaWiki.
In RCS,tracing when, how and by whom a particular piece of
code was altered (i.e., who introduced that bug) is as hard
as it now is in MediaWiki.Do any of the newer systems (SVN,
Git, ...) or commercial integrated development environments
have better support for this?
Lars Aronsson (lars(a)aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se