On 01/17/2011 06:50 PM, Anthony wrote: > If you want a high level of accuracy when trying to determine who > added a particular fact (such as "Overall, the city is relatively > flat", which may have started out as "Paris, in general, contains very > few changes in elevation"), you really need to combine automated tools > with human understanding.
Our current "diff" is not perfect, it often performs worse than the GNU "wdiff" (word diff) utility. But it is still useful. What I'm calling for is a way to filter out (or group together) some of the edits from the history view that had nothing at all to do with the specified sentence or paragraph. This shouldn't be impossible to do. It need not be perfect. The more irrelevant edits it can filter out, the better. I'm a "Unix programmer" from the days of RCS, which is functionally equivalent to the version control in MediaWiki. In RCS,tracing when, how and by whom a particular piece of code was altered (i.e., who introduced that bug) is as hard as it now is in MediaWiki.Do any of the newer systems (SVN, Git, ...) or commercial integrated development environments have better support for this? -- Lars Aronsson ([email protected]) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
