There is another important difference. Rollback is 'aggressive'. It can only 
leave 1 editsummary:

"Reverted edits by User A (talk) to last version by User B"

Undo however leaves you a bit more flexibility. The default editmessage can be 
replace and should be for any case where any AGF can potentially can come into 
play.

DJ


On 5 apr. 2014, at 03:36, Kenan Wang <[email protected]> wrote:

> Maryana,
> 
> Undo and revert are specific actions. Undo does do the thing that i 
> described, but it is more of a power user feature and what I'm hearing is 
> that in practice undo is typically just used for the most recent edit which 
> basically makes it the same as rollback except that rollback isn't offered to 
> everyone and rollback is a one step process.
> 
> The difference between an edit and a revision is that the edit is actual 
> atomic change, while the revision is the version of the document at the time 
> of that change. I think on desktop we've been conditioned to think about them 
> the same because we can display so much data, but on mobile displaying both 
> edits and revisions together is quite challenging. 
> 
> But the point is well taken that the most important use case is: The most 
> recent change from the watchlist with a quick revert/rollback/undo 
> functionality. We don't need to worry too much about reverting to versions 
> from a long time ago, or complicated undo procedures for specific edits in 
> the middle of a stream of edits.
> 
> Design: Maybe that means that in Watchlist we highlight the most recent 
> changes somehow (maybe grouped by user) and then make rollback/undo only 
> available for those changes for now. Same thing on article history page. This 
> seams like a reasonable MVP.
> 
> Kenan
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:18 PM, James Alexander <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Maryana Pinchuk <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
> 
> > 2) Rollback - this is when you take all of the edits of the last user and
> > revert to the revision before those edits. The purpose of this is when there
> > is a user that has been committing vandalism you can quickly rollback those
> > edits. This is a one step process because it just does the revert and saves
> > automatically.
> >
> > note 1: generally speaking vandalism gets caught quickly and is often the
> > most recent or most recent set of edie by a single user i.e. the situation
> > that rollback is designed for
> 
> Well, not really. Rollback is designed for the rarer use-case of the
> persistent vandal who makes a bunch of bad edits to a page. But most
> edits that are reverted are first-time test edits/light vandalism of
> the clueless newbie variety, which is usually just the one most recent
> edit.
> 
> 
> To be fair rollback is actually much more common then that. While it shines 
> the most in the multi edit scenario it's most often used in the single edit 
> variety as well and is actually required for normal huggle usage. This is 
> because it's all one action and is significantly faster then a manual 'click 
> undo' (which requires you to go through extra steps).  When I was heavily 
> involved in anti vandal/abuse fighting rollback was 'the' revert compared to 
> the manual undo which people did for a while to get trusted enough to use 
> gain the rollback right. (there are a couple reasons you needed to be trusted 
> but one of the biggest ones is exactly because you can do reverts so quickly 
> without an extra confirmation page).
> 
> James
> 
> 
> 
> James Alexander
> Legal and Community Advocacy
> Wikimedia Foundation
> (415) 839-6885 x6716 @jamesofur
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Kenan Wang
> Product Manager, Mobile
> Wikimedia Foundation
> _______________________________________________
> Mobile-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

_______________________________________________
Mobile-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mobile-l

Reply via email to