It strikes me this must be wrong. The 90% churn rate is way too high, surely?
Looking at own git logs (for code, not prose), I notice git is very happy to add and delete lines even if just some characters on those lines have changed. Is it not the case that the author of the article has simply edited 90% of the lines in his book, rather than rewritten them completely? That seems much more likely to me.
Looking at own git logs (for code, not prose), I notice git is very happy to add and delete lines even if just some characters on those lines have changed. Is it not the case that the author of the article has simply edited 90% of the lines in his book, rather than rewritten them completely? That seems much more likely to me.