Just want to understand the edit process towards being a better editor, making less work for reviewers. ( I didn't find an Editing FAQ ). Have a specific instance as example: got some very helpful code (on main StackOverflow) as an answer from another user. So helpful, for me at least, that I'm going to award a bounty on it. Figuring it might be helpful to others, I tried the (Java-android) code as supplied, found missing imports, etc., fixed a few typos and common syntax errors. The fixes were fairly trivial, but might trip up a lesser experienced coder. My editorial process was probably typical: rapid fire corrections, say 3 to 4 edits in 5 - 10 mins, saving each time (without changing the original note about the purpose of the edit), followed by a few more later when I found some bugs.
All of my edits were queued up under what appeared to me as the same as-yet-to-be-approved edit. So does that mean it really will be one edit review for the reviewer, or will he or she have to review each of the individual edits ?
Understood, it would have been better for me to catch all this stuff and just do one, encompassing edit. Yet, it's probably common for this not to be possible, e.g. the bug I found didn't show up until I plopped the code into its bigger context.
I guess what I'm really asking (sorry to be verbose :) ... is it really OK to do a bunch of little, but non-trivial edits, or is that really frowned on ? (No, I'd never edit "Its" to "It's" :)) (I did read the great edit wars post --- sorta as fun as War and Peace )