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.