17

Recently, I edited one of my answers to update a link to a better resource. I clicked "Save" without entering a description of the edit (edit #1).

Then I realised that the question was asked by a new user who may not be able to easily identify the change that was made. So I edited it again, this time only to add a detailed edit description (edit #2).

Since edit #2 was made during the grace period (within 5 minutes of edit #1), the system has merged them into a single edit, but only the edit comment from edit #1 was recorded in the revision history, whereas edit #2's comment was simply discarded/ignored.

I'd suggest that either the most recent (non-default) edit comment is taken or that the comments are concatenated to provide a more useful edit history

  • 1
    I tried to find a duplicate because I'm sure this has been posted before, but my meta.SO-search-fu has failed me again. – Aaron Bertrand Jul 25 '13 at 20:02
  • @AaronBertrand If there is one, I apologise - I did do a search and failed to find one either but if you do find it and post a link, I'll add my close/duplicate vote to any others. – Basic Jul 25 '13 at 21:45
  • 3
    Oh I'm not angry, don't worry, I just tried to find one in the hopes that there was some feedback or conversations you could benefit from. I do agree that merging edits can be frustrating. – Aaron Bertrand Jul 25 '13 at 21:55
  • Actually technically the edits aren't being merged, but it's a grace period in case you realize you messed up. Kinda how edits in the first five minutes after you post a question/answer don't show. – Doorknob Jul 26 '13 at 0:22
  • Yes. The most recent edit in the grace period stands, so I don't know why the least recent edit summary/description/comment stands, and have been frustrated by this too. – AndrewC Jul 26 '13 at 6:53
  • Err, I was pretty certain that I've abused this same feature in the past, and it worked exactly the opposite of what you've described. That is, the most recent edit summary replaced the original. EDIT: Indeed, it appears that I was right. Or at least it used to work this way. – Cody Gray Jul 26 '13 at 7:02
  • Indeed, I just tried it again here. My original edit changed only the title and said only "a little clearer". Then I ninja-edited to fix the "android" typo and added "(and also one teeny tiny typo)". The most recent edit summary is the only one that was saved. So in other words: no repro. – Cody Gray Jul 26 '13 at 14:45
  • @CodyGray In my case, I didn't change the body, only the edit comment. I suspect that's the difference but didn't make it clear enough in my question. – Basic Jul 27 '13 at 5:53
  • Ah yes. You're right. The second edit has to actually make a change, otherwise it's ignored. That makes sense to me: you didn't edit anything. It's like a NOP. – Cody Gray Jul 27 '13 at 5:56
5

Since edit #2 was made during the grace period (within 5 minutes of edit #1), the system has merged them into a single edit

No, that's not what happened. The system determined that edit #2 didn't change anything and just discarded the entire edit without doing anything at all. The edit reason is not a part of the checks for determining if you actually changed anything because the grace period is there to make minor corrections that you missed or introduced while editing, not to better explain the edit you just made.

If you actually make further edits to the post within the grace period (to the body, or to the tags or title for questions), then your most recent edit reason will be saved over the previous one.

Your real feature request: Considering all of this, you actually want the edit reason to be considered when determining if the post has changed, and for it to be saved if it has been changed, regardless of the rest of the post.

  • Errr...was this actually resolved as "status-bydesign"? Why can't you edit an edit summary within the grace period without throwing in a random tag or other unnecessary edit to get the change? Yes, a workaround exists...but it seems silly and also one might not notice it discarded what you edited it to say (and one might be annoyed at having to retype what you said, let's just say, theoretically :-/). – HostileFork Nov 15 '17 at 10:06

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .