If you want this feature you can open up action.undo and try changing
these lines:
//{*:changesummary}//
{*:diff}
to
[(include {+p} dir=stamps)]
I was kind of surprize it works. We don't have a dir=stamps option for
the source function, but we could add it. I also need to double check
that our authorizations work the same with stamps as regular pages,
but I suspect they will.
Cheers,
Dan
P.S. Or for more what you had in mind, try creating a action.stampsource with
[(include {?stamp} dir=stamps)]
[[{p}&action=undo|Back]]
And then on action undo slip somewhere
[[{p}&action=stampsource&stamp={+p}|See full stamp]]
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Markus Weimar
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mar 11, 2010, at 8:58 PM, The Editor wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Markus <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I've been wondering ever since why there are no helpful links on
>>> action.undo.
>>>
>>> 1) "Page edited by Markus." -> Markus could link to login.markus.
>>> (This applies to all usernames that are output anywhere. It's the web
>>> so I would link them.)
>>>
>>> I see that the changesummary would have to be saved as [[login.markus|
>>> Markus]].
>>
>> The problem is, I suspect most sites don't have profile pages setup.
>> They may exist, but unless there is a strong user community, those
>> pages are blank. So a link won't mean much. But the action pages could
>> be easily customized to convert {member} to [[~{member}]]. You just
>> have to find them all.
>
> Okay, I see this would lead to tons of ? links everywhere... Dismissed.
>
>>> 2) "Version: Mon Mar 8 21:12:52 2010" -> Could link to the stamped
>>> version of the page to allow looking at the whole page instead of its
>>> changes only.
>>>
>>> One more thought. The diff view is great but often I would prefer to
>>> (optionally) display a list of all the previous whole pages one after
>>> the other. In the sense of:
>>>
>>> for every stamp: print "!! date of stamp" and [(include stamp)]
>>>
>>> Often this would allow for easier identification of the version you
>>> are looking for. Especially if there are hard to notice changes in the
>>> markup which you would instantly see on the full page.
>>
>> This is a good idea, but to my knowledge there is no core
>> functionality to view a stamp page content. The diff function can read
>> and generate a comparison, but we'd have to have a special plugin or
>> add some new functionality somewhere to view the actual page. It could
>> be done of course, but I haven't been convinced it needs to be in the
>> core. A plugin seems more logical.
>
> Isn't the page simply everything down to ~data~? Wouldn't it be as simple as
> to process the stamp until that line?
>
> If this was true, then it would already be in the source (almost)...
>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Dan
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "BoltWire" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> [email protected].
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/boltwire?hl=en.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "BoltWire" group.
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> [email protected].
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/boltwire?hl=en.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"BoltWire" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/boltwire?hl=en.
