On Sep 6, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote: > If we decide that comments should not increment the version, then the > changes in the code are small, just set a few settings to false. > However, the problems come when dealing with versions, history, diff, > revert. Comments will still be attached objects, and working with them > will be as it is now, except that you won't be able to revert between > two comments. If we want to make the revert work differently for them, > too, then there are some other small/medium changes needed, but it > will be more like a workaround, and not a proper fix. > > We could make comments a new kind of entity, that is not stored the > way normal objects are stored, but I'm totally against it. That's just > another special case (the first being tags, which needed some special > code in the core). Ideally, the comment feature should be optional, > and should be completely separable into a XAR.
+1, which is why I'm reluctant to make an exception for the comments. I'm also not sure why it's problem that document version increases when a comment is added for example. -Vincent > On 9/4/07, Erin Schnabel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> I don't think adding comments should increment the version, while >> adding tags, perhaps, should. Tags are an attribute of the document, >> in that they classify the document text. Comments are not part of >> the >> document content, are often edited separately (by the comment >> author), >> and can be deleted. The sticky issue is that attached objects are >> stored as part of the versioned content in the archive... >> >> How are changes that don't bump the version currently handled RE: >> archive? (sorry for being ignorant w/ this part..) >> _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
