On Dec 1, 2003, at 17:43, Evan Prodromou wrote:
Man, these tables drive me crazy. Is there a good
reason I'm missing
that we don't it like this?
+------------------+ +---------------+
| page | | page_version |
+------------------+ +---------------+
| page_id | ----> | version_id |
| current_version | ----/ | page_id |
+------------------+ | timestamp |
| user |
| ... |
| data |
+---------------+
I believe I've already advocated this for the next major revision of
the software. (We can transform 'old' into the revisions table and keep
the present old_id numbers intact, then add the present 'cur' data
after it.)
But first, we branch a stable release of the current version. We _are_
in feature freeze, supposedly.
-- brion vibber (brion @
pobox.com)