https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6181
--- Comment #10 from James Forrester <[email protected]> --- (In reply to GregH from comment #9) > Or, instead of potentially breaking who-knows how many templates and wikis > that may be using subst: on those other magic words, People using bad parts of MediaWiki should always beware that it's likely we stop supporting hacks that shouldn't work. This has always been the case. The fact that the faked-in (not real) versions of REVISIONMTIMESTAMP are made available is ludicrous. > you could leave them > alone and get consistency in behaviour by fixing the issue with REVISIONID > instead, which is what people actually want? > > This issue has been raised many times, and there are various forum threads > on the internet where people are asking how to use subst: for REVISIONID. At > the moment it simply is not possible. Umm… The fabric of the universe prevents this request, as anyone who understands how MediaWiki works could immediately spot. There is no possible way you can know the ID until after you've inserted it, at which point you can't change what you've just inserted without changing the revision ID, at which point the ID you inserted isn't the ID for the content you want, at which point… etc.. This is not "WONTFIX" from evil, laughing developers who don't care. It's "REALITY INTERJECTS". -- 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 [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
