On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:02 PM, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: > Matt Amos wrote: >> >> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Well, in reality Potlatch can put any comment where the hell it likes >>> because it's not hidebound by the XML API that you poor saps have to >>> labour >>> under... >> >> and, in reality, so can JOSM. the XML api doesn't require a comment >> tag on the changeset at any point. > > People asked why the API does not *enforce* a commit comment if it was so > important. My answer that Potlatch would not be able to function then. Which > is true (if one assumes that Potlatch would use the normal API...); because > how would you enforce a commit comment other than requiring the tag be set > on changeset creation?
which is one of the reasons i don't like enforcing comments on changesets. the others are the same as why we don't enforce any sort of tagging schema - i prefer to give users and developers the chance to surprise me by doing something cool i didn't expect ;-) >> of course, if what you meant was that because you write the potlatch >> api you can reach into the guts of the database and fiddle with >> changesets after they're closed... well... :-P > > Oh, so we didn't implement the cryptographic anti-Potlatch-fiddling measures > that we talked about on the hack weekend after Richard went home? sshhh! he still doesn't know we de-prioritise potlatch api calls so it becomes unusably slow and everyone switches to using JOSM or merkaartor instead. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ josm-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/josm-dev
