Alex Monk <> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
             Status|REOPENED                    |RESOLVED
                 CC|                            |
         Resolution|---                         |WONTFIX

--- Comment #15 from Alex Monk <> ---
(In reply to comment #12)
> Reopening.
> The decision to disregard the risks needs to come from WMF management.
> I have provided a bit more info in email to functionaries-en.

This is going back to WONTFIX until you explain an adequate reason **here**. I
suggest you do not revert it again.

In reply to your email, existence of a revision (with no associated deletion
log, no visible author, no comment, or content) and a timestamp are not private
information. Oversighters should not be promising anyone about future behaviour
of software controlled by developers not under their control.

(In reply to comment #14)
> A request to implement the feature can be one bug report (viz. this one); a
> request to actually enable the implemented feature on a particular wiki can
> be
> another bug report. There is no need to WONTFIX implementing a feature that
> can
> be disabled on wikis where its use would be undesirable.

Implementing this feature to provide to any wiki is undesirable as far as I'm

(In reply to comment #14)
> Either way, Bugzilla isn't where one debates whether to enable features on a
wiki, unless there are technical issues involved; those policy decisions are
made in other venues.

Yes, however they will have to go through Bugzilla to get it actually
implemented so they could enable it.

You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Wikibugs-l mailing list

Reply via email to