--- Comment #13 from Nemo_bis <> 2010-12-03 09:41:58 UTC 
(In reply to comment #12)
> If someone rolls back good edits to a "sighted" version, and this new version
> (with the same text as the last "sighted" version) is also marked "sighted"
> automatically, then stable version is considered "up to date" and does not 
> show
> up as having anything to review (e.g. Special:PendingChanges). People may or
> *may not* want this behavior for users just because they have rollback.

Well, if I understand correctly your point, this may be a problem only if the
restored revision has some problems which the rollbacked good edit was trying
to address, because in that case something has changed (the evaluation of the
restored revision may change because we know something new about it); but such
a use of rollback is considered an abuse everywhere, as far as I know: rollback
should basically be used only for vandalism.

> There are probably additional reasons people might not want rollback and and
> reviewing rights to be mixed in a hard coded way; such things have a nasty
> habit of revealing themselves after code is already in use for a while.

As I said above, unless some wiki uses rollback in a different way than the
most common and correct one (which would be very strange, but I understand that
we can't assume it won't happen) there shouldn't be any problem. 
If you think that the technical tool of rollback is likely to be used with
different meanings, then I think that you could create that
"rollback-restorereviewtags" right, or even an additional "rollback-autoreview"
right, and add it (or them) to the default rights of sysops and rollbackers, so
that wikis which want to use rollback in a different way can do so, but most
wikis are not annoyed by unexpected and inconsistent behaviours; this would
close this bug.

Configure bugmail:
------- 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