On Thu Nov 13 2014 at 8:27:08 AM Brian Wolff <bawolff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 13, 2014 11:43 AM, "Derric Atzrott"
<datzrott(a)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