https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4715
--- Comment #63 from Bawolff (Brian Wolff) <[email protected]> --- (Inreply to Andre Klapper from comment #62) > Greg: Do you have any input on comment 59 (what could be the process here)? > > (In reply to Bawolff (Brian Wolff) from comment #61) > > People in certain scripts complain often about only being able to write 85 > > letter summaries (63 letters if you have a really unlucky script). > > > > Actual technical proposal above (storing full comment in external storage, > > not showing it in most reports unless specificly unless asked for) would > > probably need to be signed off on by a dba. > > DBA = would that be springle? Yes. This bug has a long history, and its a little confusing. To summarize there seem to be three things discussed: *make various edit summary fields longer (convert to blob). Domas has vetoed that due to interfering with covering indexes. That was quite a while ago. Springle could perhaps comment on if covering indexes are still a hard requirement. I suspect they are. *make js to make sure people dont go over limit. This is done. *keep current limit but have "..." at end of comment be clickable and have js load rest of summary on click. This needs to be fleshed out a little more, but badic questions that need answering: **would users find such a solution acceptable (design review needed). **where would long version go? External storage? **how would we associate edits with long version. New db fields? Sticking an id number at the end of rev_comment after some marker field? **how long to go. If we allow infinite, should the interface treat it more like a commit summary? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
