From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <5d375e920812300518j1cc29334m3e48e3d91a4aefdb@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:18:08 +0100
From: Uriel <uriel99@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net>
In-Reply-To: <b65a20f714c4341f2a2ccf1b39196fde@terzarima.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <D44BEA63-52D1-461A-ACB5-77F52125EA63@sun.com>
	<b65a20f714c4341f2a2ccf1b39196fde@terzarima.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Changelogs & Patches?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 74082478-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Knowing *who* made the change is often even more useful than the change comment.

uriel

On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 2:48 AM, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>