Timwi wrote:
David Friedland wrote:
I have written up a short, math-y description of
an algorithmic method
for determining whether or not a given revision constitutes reversion.
It won't work. No matter how clever and complicated your algorithm gets,
people can just study it and then make edits that *just* fall outside
the definition of a reversion.
I analysed David's algorithm, and wrote a summary of it that hopefully
non-mathematicians will be able to understand. I also described the method
required to make a reversion barely exceed the definition. You just have to
add padding 1/9 of the size of the change you're making. An HTML comment
would be quite sufficient. It's all on the meta page.
-- Tim Starling