We could mix these two approaches, but the working copy going behind the latest change is the main issue. We're not talking about git, and it is natural text to be merged, unlike the programming languages. That is why I'm certain that every draft stored at the server-side should be treated as outdated, a new change is contributed before the draft is actually used at the first time. That is why I think it's expensive. We pay "money" for nothing, for a spurious machine time.
That's why it is better to work locally at the client-side. And one more moment: drafts should work slightly different when the user creates a new article. Every new article has Article ID == 0, that is why a different way to store the drafts (dedicated named drafts?) should be chosen. On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Chad <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Bartosz Dziewoński > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:32:17 +0200, Chad <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> What about the Drafts extension? > > > > > > It seems to be slightly different, saving the drafts server-side instead > of > > client-side, and apparently only on demand or every few minutes instead > of > > basically continuously. > > > > Granted, but it's worth keeping in mind since these are all possible > solutions to people losing their hard work :) > > -Chad > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > -- З павагай, Павел Селіцкас/Pavel Selitskas Wizardist @ Wikimedia projects _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
