Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for December 5, 2013
Deadline scheduling: coming soon?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 27, 2013
ACPI for ARM?
LWN.net Weekly Edition for November 21, 2013
> [root@jovi]# cd linux/kernel/trace/ktap
> [root@jovi]# make #generate ktapvm kernel module
> [root@jovi]# insmod ./ktapvm.ko
Ktap 0.1 released
Posted May 21, 2013 14:32 UTC (Tue) by alexl (subscriber, #19068)
Posted May 21, 2013 14:46 UTC (Tue) by cmm (guest, #81305)
Posted May 21, 2013 14:52 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Posted May 21, 2013 14:47 UTC (Tue) by cmm (guest, #81305)
Posted May 22, 2013 7:34 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
Because the conversation may have continued, and editing/deleting previous comments would be misleading to readers who came in late? I hate it when that happens elsewhere. In addition, "think before you write" is a good way to enforce the higher standard of conversation that is generally seen on LWN, i.m.o.
One alternative (which I haven't seen used anywhere) is to permit updating comments at the bottom, but disallow editing or deleting previous text...
Posted May 22, 2013 10:13 UTC (Wed) by njwhite (subscriber, #51848)
That is a pain because it requires cross-referencing the time the update was made with the time replies to it were made, to figure out whether they took the update into account. I have found that on reddit.
I think the current model lwn has is best, overall.
Posted May 22, 2013 10:22 UTC (Wed) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
Posted May 22, 2013 16:35 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304)
Posted May 22, 2013 10:31 UTC (Wed) by sorpigal (subscriber, #36106)
I tend to agree; the advantage of a hierarchy of replies is a great deal of structure. That said, the best system would be one where chronology is even more clear. Example: I may read the original post, then a reply to it, then a reply to that, then I might reply to the original. Because my reply is to the root I become a branch from that even though, chronologically, I also follow the second reply. The contents of the second reply may influence what I write, but the only way to tell that my reply actually came afterwards is to do timestamp cross referencing.
In a more relevant example: suppose I reply to myself with a correction. Which replies to my original read the correction before replying to the original? It would be nice if there were a way to tell (visually) without losing the hierarchy.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds