Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

6
  • So far as I recall, the grace period predates the CW autoconversion; heck, the concept predates SO itself by quite a bit. Heck, there's a grace period for comments as well... Commented Feb 20, 2013 at 9:11
  • My memory was that CW autoconversion was there almost from the start, if not the start, but my memory is quite imperfect. I remember when the grace period came along, but don't have a clear memory on when the CW autoconversion was happening. Commented Feb 20, 2013 at 15:22
  • We've .. changed the scope of community wiki. It's no longer automatic for crossing an edit threshold. I can't remember any other practical reason (or use case) envisioned for the grace period. Lance - sanity check? Commented May 12, 2015 at 16:37
  • @TimPost, I can't think of any circumstance where it's needed. It may be useful to keep from cluttering the edit history, since my workflow (unfortunately) involves making a lot of small edits after I finish and read it some more. However, I think it would be ok to not have the grace period. Commented May 12, 2015 at 16:46
  • Well, we could still have the grace period .. I have to think about it a bit more. Thanks Lance, as always. Commented May 12, 2015 at 17:39
  • @TimPost One practical reason is to have readable revision history. If each "oops, missed yet another comma" edit generates a new revision, the first five minutes of a post's life would take up a sizable chunk of the history, without adding any information. The size of PostHistory table is also something to consider. Commented May 12, 2015 at 22:56