Frederik Ramm wrote: >> First of you might want to do rollback from Z to Y only because >> you want to keep Y to X. > > Changesets are a grouping of edits that make things easier because one > only has to work with the groups - e.g. not show all individual edits, > but show the group as a whole, etc.
That is really the core idea of a changeset; it deals with a collection of changes as one entity. If an editor wants to be able to revert/have a check in comment for/etc individual changes, they can just commit each change in its own changeset. Looking at how this model is used elsewhere (any source control system), that'd be like committing after each keystroke/newline. I doubt that would be useful - the thing changesets bring is the ability to record why some changes were done as a whole. I.e., if you look back at some old data you want to see that user X's Saturday morning contribution was "added road names based on NPE map". Being able to see "user changed tag X to Y, user dragged node here, user changed tag Y back to X, user changed tag X to Z" is not useful; it's just information for the sake of it. If an editor wants to monitor individual edits in order to provide coaching or feedback to users, that's best done by watching user actions as they happen and providing feedback based on that (recording that info in the DB for every action for every user is pointless, as who would ever really go back and process it?). > You want changesets as some universal access and documentation method > for the history of everything, and I want them as closed, near-atomic > changes. +1 to the latter; changesets let us group related changes together, and document what they were for - that's the point of having them. -dair ___________________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.refnum.com/ _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
