https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=22293
--- Comment #3 from SoWhy <[email protected]> 2010-01-28 12:35:11 UTC --- (In reply to comment #1) > (In reply to comment #0) > > * 23:59, 31 December 2099 <Admin> (talk | contribs | block) changed > > protection > > settings for <Article> [set edit=autoconfirmed from edit=all] (expires > > 23:59, 1 > > January 2100 (UTC)) [set move=autoconfirmed from move=all] (expires 23:59, 1 > > January (UTC)) (<Reason>) (hist | change) > > This format is a little weird -- it's interleaving the old and new values. It > makes the log entires hard to read. I think this might be a bit too much > information for the average user. Might be useful in the API though. Well, it was only an example. It could also look like this: * 23:59, 31 December 2099 <Admin> (talk | contribs | block) changed protection settings for <Article> [edit=autoconfirmed] (expires 23:59, 1 January 2100 (UTC)) [move=autoconfirmed] (expires 23:59, 1 January (UTC)) (<Reason>) (hist | change) Previous settings: edit=all, move=all. The point is, that with previous entries (and many such entries), you need to start calculating whether the protection was a change or a new protection. When blocking for example, the system instead uses "<Admin> blocked <User>" for a new block but "<Admin> changed block settings for <User>" if the new block just modifies the old one. Regards SoWhy -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are watching all bug changes. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
