Rob Lanphier wrote: > We'll probably need to store the checksums. My read of the objections > in bug 21860 looked like objections based on not having a clear use > case (which this provides), fear that developers will start querying > on the new field, and a refuted concern about possible MD5 collisions. > >> There's a broader question about whether page histories should be "pure" or >> not. The history of what happened to a page might be unsightly, but >> tampering with it (or the public's view of it) can be dangerous. > > I don't think this is really tampering with the history; just with the > presentation of the history. > > It may be that, at first, the feature would need to be enabled on > pages configured for Pending Changes, since that's where the need is > the most acute. There's a lot of clamoring for "proper" rejection of > a revision, where "proper" is "the revision doesn't show up in the > revision history". If we implemented the request literally, there > would be other people who would complain that we're destroying good > faith edits, so we need them to show up somewhere. This would be a > compromise; the revisions are still there in the db, but they aren't > in everyone's face. > > Rob
Note: See if this feature can help to the bigger goal of removing archive table and having anything there into a RevDeleted like system. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
