https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26123
--- Comment #10 from Roan Kattouw <[email protected]> 2011-06-19 12:51:50 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > Reassure me that the time stamp is sufficiently granular that the revision ID > is NEVER needed as a tie breaker, which is what I was referring to. It's not, but then that issue exists already. > Clearly, > if page ID was the only method of determining order, things would be horribly > broken, Yes, they would be. Which is why no one is proposing the page ID be used to determine the order of anything. It's simply proposed that the page we create to give restored revisions a home get its old page ID back. To reiterate: this proposal is about restoring page IDs when restoring revisions. It wouldn't change the existing behavior concerning timestamps or revision IDs or anything else that's used for ordering. Therefore, there are no out-of-order risks because ordering isn't touched. equally clearly they are not, so my assumption was that the time stamp > was at least primarily used. This was all implicit in my statement "to > determine where (if anywhere)" was the request above. Does the time stamp > suffice everywhere? And of course determining this may not be trivial, since > the source of the time stamp needs to be taken into account, even two machines > running from the same local ntp service will generate a percentage of > out-of-order timestamps, depending on the granularity. Yes, timestamps aren't perfect, but that's an existing problem that won't be made any worse (or better) by the requested feature. -- 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 on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
