Am 11.07.2016 um 17:43 schrieb Brian Wolff: > To me, (b) makes more sense, as all the other fields in page represent the > info for the current revision. Additionally all the fields in revision > (except rev_deleted) are immutable and never change, and definitely dont > change interpretation based on other db fields. Having old revisions have a > dependency on the page table (especially a dependency going in the > direction revision->page) seems wrong to me.
The question is whether you want the interpretation of that field to depend on another database field related to the same page, or on global configuration. Both seem wrong, but depending on config seems worse: in the cases where it happens, there is no way to fix it. A database field can at least be updated. Am 11.07.2016 um 16:10 schrieb Brad Jorsch (Anomie): > Both your (a) and (b) are wrong in some cases. Until we really fix it, we > should probably just stick with the current (b) instead of dealing with the > hassle of switching between one bad option and another. Yea, I agree that it's generally better to stick with the evil you know. But then, if one kind of wrongness has a lot more impact than the other, that may tip the scale the other way... But in any case, it seems we have to just fix the data in the database to get around the issue. My problem is now, when installing Wikibase, how do we detect which revisions need rewriting? -- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
