On 10/16/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 16/10/2007, RLS evendell@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/15/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/15/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@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