--- Comment #10 from Alex Monk <> ---
(In reply to comment #7)
> (In reply to comment #6)
> > So the placeholder would be hidden? It's possible and the script could be
> > changed to do it, but the fact that those got hidden is basically seen as a
> > bug, not a feature.
> James is asking to put the revisions in the archive table rather than the
> revision table, as I understand it.

Yes I understand that, it has the effect of always hiding the placeholder from
normal users (putting it in the archive is okay if the OS'd revision would have
been page-deleted) and is therefore not going to happen.

(In reply to comment #8)
> That's not a bug, it was very much a feature of the tool as originally
> designed
> and used, I think it's legitimate to do this change but that's a different
> question. This is a change in state for very legitimate reasons, but not a
> bugfix.

I disagree that it should have ever been considered a feature, I don't see the
use case (and actually some people claimed to have a use case but wanted it to
stay private - away from Bugzilla - which is very much against the way
MediaWiki is developed and therefore very heavily encouraged me to WONTFIX it).
The idea has a separate bug of it's own which is WONTFIXed. Here is not the
place to try to bring it up again.

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

Reply via email to