<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
4. Lipiec 2018 08:28 od <a href="mailto:f@zz.de" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">f@zz.de</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote class="tutanota_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid #93A3B8; padding-left: 10px; margin-left: 5px;">On Tue, Jul 03, 2018 at 11:17:29PM +0200, Mateusz Konieczny wrote:<blockquote>3. Lipiec 2018 21:53 od <a href="mailto:f@zz.de" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">f@zz.de</a> <<a href="mailto:mailto:f@zz.de" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">mailto:f@zz.de</a>>:<br /><br /><br />> IMHO fixing problems in the data always start with fixing the cause<br />> why they are added in the first place. Otherwise you fix the current<br />> state but errors start beeing added the minute you think you are "done".<br /><br />That is one of motivation for this edit. Mappers learn by (among other<br />methods) by looking at currently mapped objects.</blockquote><br />From my QA work - No they dont. <br /></blockquote><p><br /></p><p>I wonder whatever there is some more serious comparison. I base my <br /></p><p>opinion on (a) personal experience (b) comments/explanations of other mappers </p><p>(during tag discussion, changeset discussions etc).</p><p><br /></p><p>Note that I am not claiming that it is sole/main method, I agree that editor presets</p><p>and wiki descriptions are much more powerful.<br /></p> </body>
</html>