Look, I got the point about mixing up issues. Thanks for bother to reply BTW, it is appreciated.
Phil On Sun, Jun 9, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Jun 9, 2013, at 6:59 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > As a end user, it gives the impression that the system is shaky. > > > > Now, this is written out of frustration: I spent while documenting a set > of classes only to get the thing to a VM crash when posting to monticello > and followed by the inability to get the work back without copy/pasting > stuff all over again since the changes files wouldn't work (and is full of > <historical> entries). > > > > The <historical> is *just* that the who changed the class comment when is > lost. Nothing else. This is not important, no other language records that > information. > > > Well, that's what it has to do with each other: the workflow is broken > and it demotivated me from documenting classes again. > > The information lost due to the <historical> thing is normally not even > shown in the browser, and I honestly do not see at all why this is relevant. > > The issue with looking at the .changes after a vm crash is completely > different, and should be looked at, as should be the other 500 issues on > the issue tracker. > > > Preventing contribution is not good. Especially given the boatload of > undocumented items. > > But mixing up issues just makes everyone confused. > > Marcus > > > >
