Clarify the order of changes in CDC

[nvitucci]

No description provided.

[stefano-ottolenghi]

I'd put this as leading sentence for the section (without Note that), as the listed ordering is a further explanation.

[nvitucci]

I think of this as a clarification instead, since the section is about the order within the output rather than in the transaction, but I'm fine either way. I'm including the change.

[stefano-ottolenghi]

Suggested change

	CDC tracks logical changes only; therefore, if two or more changes cancel each other (for example, a `DELETE` following a `CREATE` on the same node), none is included in the change stream.
	CDC tracks logical changes only: if two or more changes cancel each other out (for example, a `DELETE` following a `CREATE` on the same node), none is included in the change stream.

Also, is logical the right term here? It may be and I just don't know it; otherwise, something like effective could be more descriptive.

[nvitucci]

Good catch for the missing out.

I think logical is the right term here, as opposed to physical (see also the question on the forum that sparked this update), both commonly used in database-related topics. If we want to make it less technical (if slightly more ambiguous), we could use actual.

[nvitucci]

(Or remove it altogether.)

[stefano-ottolenghi]

I don't think actual makes it more ambiguous; if anything, I think logical vs physical is ambiguous. What's the physical change? Is it the bits being altered in the file containing the changed entity? Is it a struct field being rewritten? Or is, as Rory says in that topic, the creation of a whole graph entity? That's much more ambiguous to me, and so is logical.

[nvitucci]

Let's go with actual then.

[neo-technology-commit-status-publisher]

Thanks for the documentation updates.

The preview documentation has now been torn down - reopening this PR will republish it.