Currently if Person A and Person B both are editing a post and Person A saves their changes, then Person B tries to save their changes, Person B will get an error indicating it has been modified by another person and *lose their changes*.
Revisions would allow us to significantly improve that experience. On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 11:51 AM, Philip Buckley <[email protected]>wrote: > As an end-user rather than a developer, I must admit I don’t really > understand the significance of “in core” versus “in a core plugin”. > > I find Owen’s comparison of Revisions with Taxonomy intriguing. Taxonomy, > as I understand it, is in the abstract about how you group things (in the > case of Habari those things are posts) and Revisions, one could say, in the > abstract are about how you deal with the history of something (in the case > of Habari a post) If the logic is that taxonomy (the abstract) is in core > and concrete things can be done with it in plugins, e.g. a menus plugin or > a categories plugin, then I can see the logic of Revisions in core that can > be used via plugins to do concrete things, e.g. build a wiki or an > editorial workflow. Is that the logic? > > One thing that has been mentioned in the course of the discussion is the > potential of building an editorial workflow on Habari with Revisions. This > is something I have thought about before, and I am very excited by the > potential. What I have thought about before is an editorial workflow in a > multi-user setup, and the one fundamental thing I would need is a way to > prevent 2 people editing the same post at the same time. If I understand > correctly how Owen has implemented revisions, the revisions made by 2 > people of a post would result in each of their revised versions being > stored, so one could always go back to one or other person’s version. > However, for what I have in mind I would really need a single post that was > edited by person A, then by person B (or vice versa, by person B, then by > person A), but not by the two simultaneously. Does anyone have any thoughts > how theoretically this could be implemented? And whether it would be a > difficult or easy thing to implement? > > Philip > > > On 1 Feb 2013, at 03:12, Owen Winkler wrote: > > Hey guys, > > I added core code to implement revisions in API in 0.10. The basic idea is > that revisions are always on within core, and plugins modify or disable > that functionality and provide the otherwise non-existent UI for it. > > There's a discussion going on in the issue tracker about the feature right > now. Your opinions (reply here?) are appreciated. > > https://github.com/habari/habari/issues/454 > > Thanks! > Owen > > -- > -- > 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/habari-dev > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "habari-dev" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- -- 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/habari-dev --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "habari-dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
