>> i've rarely found per-change histories to be any more useful than >> most other comments, i'm afraid.
>And that meant that math texts and math teaching was all about polished >final results. ah. my statement was ambiguous. i meant per-change chatter in the history, not the changes in the history. it's fine to have the chatter, but it isn't essential, because nothing relies on it, in the sense that the chatter causes the system to change its behaviour.
