Re: wiki.d.o: SummerOfCode2009/KDE-based-packagemanager (bis)
On 2010-07-29 03:11, Martin Ågren wrote:
I agree that this page is quite small, so, in one way, any non-trivial
change could be considered, relatively, a non-minor change. So, to clear
any ambiguity, what I meant to say about the modifications is that they
are, in the absolute, minor. An example of a modification I would
consider absolutely major, would be the addition or removal of a
section. Specifically, in this page, adding a main path or removing one.
I know I shouldn't get involved here, but as an outsider (until now),
I thnk I have some neutral insight to provide.
Filipus and Frank seem to agree that the interesting question is "who
made the first bad edit". Once that is established, everything after
that is either "reverting to last good state" or "wrongfully reverting
the good revert". Ok, so where is the first bad edit? You have
different opinions on this:
On 29 July 2010 06:14, Filipus Klutiero<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On 2010-07-28 19:04, Frank Lin PIAT wrote:
Filipus Klutiero wrote:
Let me summarize:
* in revision 9, you make a single _large_ rewrite of the page
=> this is ok, but you should have split your edit, starting
by easy, non-controversial changes. (so other can understand
what you do, why you it, and comment ont it).
* in revision 10, another editor is not happy with your change.
This is incorrect. Here is a proper summary of the problematic edits on that
* in revision 9, Filipus makes several minor modifications to the page
=> this is ok
First: "several", I can agree with, but "minor" is simply not true.
Just out of curiosity, what would you think is an example of "several
major modifications" to a page of this size?
I disagree. Most edits, including those on this page, include several
changes, yet nobody is arguing most edits are wrong.
Second: Even if the changes were "several minor", that would not
necessarily be ok. If the same changes could be split into several
(even more minor) distinct commits with proper explanations, they
This is speculation, we don't have any clue what could have motivated
the first reversion at this point. Let's come back to this later, if we
ever get a justification.
I fail to see why you couldn't go this route. It would take a
slightly larger effort to begin with, but in a longer perspective, it
would definitely have saved you quite some effort.