[OSM-dev] 0.6 API clarifications and corrections

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Thu May 15 17:45:01 BST 2008


> Out of interest, why's that a bad thing? We have several editors, for  
> example: each of them works differently and presents information  
> differently. Why do we have to have One True Rollback?

We have enough trouble as it is with the small number of editors we 
have. I'm all for diversity and user choice but I'm prepared to accept 
limits to diversity where it seems sensible to me, and this is a point 
where it seems sensible.

> I can foresee ways in which different "collapsing" methods could be of  
> benefit - for example, one rollback tool might want to visualise (via  
> animation) consecutive edits within a particular changeset to see what  
> the user was doing.

That's none of your business what I was doing ;-) "oh look, that must 
have been one of Fred's drunken edit sessions, let's watch that 
animation again..."

If you are really interested in that kind of detail, load individual 
object histories or the minutely change files. A changeset, to me, 
should be like an SVN commit: I check stuff out, then I make umpteen 
edits using my favourite editor, then I check stuff in with a commit 
message. A changeset is *not* intended to be a video recording of what 
happened on the user's desktop between point A and point B.


More information about the dev mailing list