Filipus Klutiero wrote: > On 2010-07-29 03:11, Martin à gren wrote: >> On 29 July 2010 06:14, Filipus Klutiero<chea...@gmail.com> 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 page: >>> >>> * 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 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. >> 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 >> should. > I disagree. Most edits, including those on this page, include several > changes, yet nobody is arguing most edits are wrong. >> 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. >> > 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 am sorry, but I have no time to waste [anymore], trying to discuss with some one who obiously has aboslutely no intention to listen or understand what I (and other) say and explain. Regards, Franklin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-www-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/d930af79e0cfb64ff4926fab17f9e279.squir...@www.klabs.be
