I just noticed this old question received a recent edit. When I examined the edit I noticed that it greatly altered the meaning and context of the question, perhaps to better fit the editor's own answer. I wanted to roll it back but there is no rollback option. Has something changed or is it something to do with that particular question?
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
It seemed to roll back fine for me...
I don't do a lot of editing and I don't think I've ever rolled back an edit until just now, but it looks like the way it works is that earlier versions of the post have a "rollback" link that will revert the post to that version.
I'm going to leave it rolled back for now, but the guy who did the editing has updated this earlier question which has lots of discussion about that SSL/TLS question.
answered Sep 29, 2012 at 6:39
-
Thanks Ward, I had a look through the earlier revisions and there was no roll-back option anywhere at that time. Something weird's going on. Commented Sep 29, 2012 at 9:54
I'm the author that edit, and re-edited back to something closer to what it was originally.
Of course, you can say the edit I made was for my answer to fit better the question, but then again, the question I answered was quite clearly "What's the difference between SSL and TLS?" (check the history).
Saying that I edited it back to fit my answer is rather unfair.
As for the edit itself, I was merely correcting the eternal SSL v.s. TLS misconception in "I know that TLS is essentially a newer version of SSL, and that it generally supports transitioning a connection from unsecured to secured (commonly through a STARTTLS command).".
This more or less implies that SSL did not support this sort of transitioning, which isn't true. Both protocols equally support transitioning from unsecured to secured, but how this is done depends entirely on the application protocol.
I also admit this is a broad question, but since a number of IT professionals don't understand the difference, I'd argue it has its place here.
-
When I looked at that question the oldest version was not what you say it was, which is why I said what I said. However, as I also did not have the roll-back option it is possible that the page I saw was incomplete. However, I can only go on what I personally see. Commented Sep 29, 2012 at 21:17
-
No worries. It seems that the idea of editing that question isn't so popular after all anyway (I got a downvote today on the associated meta question). Why a mod would introduce a statement that could be considered as misleading in a question is not clear to me, more so because it also makes some previous answers look silly (see comments on the last one, for example). I'm not sure what to do about this...– BrunoCommented Sep 29, 2012 at 21:29
-
"Why a mod would introduce a statement that could be considered as misleading"... 1. Um, thanks for the "compliment" 2. Mods are human, apparently you've never done something others think is a mistake, but the rest of us... pretty much daily 3. It was partially intentional as the OP had some apparent misunderstandings about the various protocols and the mod wanted that reflected in the Question; more so because the Answer points out the correct information.– Chris S ModCommented Sep 30, 2012 at 3:15
-
1@ChrisS, sorry, I really didn't mean it in an offensive way. We all makes mistakes once in a while, I certainly do. I just found your edit at the time a bit odd, putting words that the OP had never said. I'm not not sure this sort of editing (coming from mods or anyone else who can edit) is a good idea, that's all.– BrunoCommented Sep 30, 2012 at 11:55