Minor corrections on previous copyedit

Being immutable doesn't necessary mean that something is always present, so
an "always present" was also added for the reason we recommend a Git
hash. The end of the sentence was also slightly summarized to allow the
extra few words.

The re-wording of the conclusion of Active papers, was great! I just
changed the "likely" to "possible", because as Konrad mentioned in Commit
a63900bc5a8, he is now using Guix.

1 files changed, 1 insertions, 1 deletions

diff --git a/paper.tex b/paper.tex
index 06596df..53caf4b 100644
--- a/paper.tex
+++ b/paper.tex
@@ -451,7 +451,7 @@ There is a thoroughly elaborated customization checklist in \inlinecode{README-h
 
 The current project's Git hash is provided to the authors as a \LaTeX{} macro (shown here in the abstract and acknowledgments), as well as the Git hash of the last commit in the Maneage branch (shown here in the acknowledgments).
 These macros are created in \inlinecode{initialize.mk}, with other basic information from the running system like the CPU details (shown in the acknowledgments).
-As opposed to Git ``tag''s, the hash is a core concept in the Git paradigm and is immutable for a given history, which is why it is recommended for precisely identifying a project version.
+As opposed to Git ``tag''s, the hash is a core concept in the Git paradigm and is immutable and always present in a given history, which is why it is the recommended version identifier.
 
 Figure \ref{fig:branching} shows how projects can re-import Maneage at a later time (technically: \emph{merge}), thus improving their low-level infrastructure: in (a) authors do the merge during an ongoing project;
 in (b) readers do it after publication; e.g., the project remains reproducible but the infrastructure is outdated, or a bug is fixed in Maneage.