Hi, On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Angela Schreiber <[email protected]> wrote: >> Wouldn't any other "version history -> path in workspace" mapping face >> the same problem? > > no.
Can you describe the mapping you had in mind? How does it address this problem with "lost" version histories? >> From the top of my head I'd treat such "lost" version histories as >> admin-only content until someone "re-connects" them by cloning a >> versionable node from another workspace or importing one from >> somewhere else. > > well... i thought about for a longer time, talked to quite some > people and made a couple of decisions regarding the way i want > to try to prevent the security issue we are facing in jr-core. > marcel and myself discussed the possibility of making the lost > version admin-only accessible and came to the conclusion that > this will not work with the use-cases we are having... i distinctly > remember a similar situation were we just happen do deal with a customer > escalation because from the top of someones head an > admin-only approach looked perfectly reasonable :-) Yeah, that's what I'd expect from a top-of-the-head idea. :-) Would you mind describing here on the list the solution you have in mind and the key use cases it needs to address? That would give us a better record of why the particular design is being chosen. (Or just point to a relevant thread I may have missed.) BR, Jukka Zitting
