Order of revision number in re-enactment annotations

This is a simple change to the way re-enactments are displayed in the history section in order to make them more persuant to Rule 105/19.

To introduce this change, consider the following excerpt from the history of Rule 2221 in the Full Logical Ruleset of December 2018:

Re-enacted and amended(6) by P8000 ‘Older Cleanliness’ (Alexis), 31 Jan 2018

Now, there’s nothing technically wrong with this. Re-enactments actually can change the text of the rule they are re-enacting; however, the “(6)” seems to indicate that the revision number is changed after the rule text is changed. If we take a look at Rule 105/19, however, it states the following:

A repealed rule identified by its most recent rule number MUST be reenacted with the same ID number and the next change identifier. If no text is specified, the rule is reenacted with the same text it had when it was most recently repealed.

This contradicts the first quotation by suggesting that the revision number is changed due to the act of re-enacting a rule, rather than as a result of the amendment.

And so, with this in mind, that line is changed in the FLR of January 2019 to read:

Re-enacted(6) and amended by P8000 ‘Older Cleanliness’ (Alexis), 31 Jan 2018

Additionally, rule changes will no longer include the “and amended” if no text has been changed since they were re-enacted.

This update corresponds to this commit on Github.