On Jun 9, 2013, at 6:59 PM, "phil@highoctane.be" <phil@highoctane.be> 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