- From: Dominique Hazael-Massieux <dom@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 15:10:35 +0200
- To: Harald Alvestrand <harald@alvestrand.no>, "Cullen Jennings (fluffy)" <fluffy@cisco.com>, Dan Burnett <dburnett@voxeo.com>
- Cc: "public-webrtc-editors@w3.org" <public-webrtc-editors@w3.org>
On 23/09/2015 15:05, Harald Alvestrand wrote: > On 09/23/2015 02:57 PM, Cullen Jennings (fluffy) wrote: >> I do not think this is a good idea. It means when you a single word >> changes in paragraph, often the whole paragraph changes. This means >> when you go to look at the PR, you have to manually try and figure >> out what changed in the paragraph. If a person adds a new outer >> section, the indentation of the every inner section changes and >> breaks ever existing PR. It also means when the WG is trying to >> track changes it is much harder for them. > > At the moment I can't remember a single case where the WG (or any > member thereof) has said that they cared what the history of a > particular line was. FWIW, I've done that a few times (in general, to understand if the current state of the spec reflects a willful change or is just the result of sedimentation), and reflowing commits had made that painful, but I've since found that git log -S '<text_to_be_searched_for>' --source --all basically solved my issue without having to suffer from non-substantive commits. Dom
Received on Wednesday, 23 September 2015 13:10:41 UTC