On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:29 AM, Bryan Tong Minh
<bryan.tongminh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 7:19 AM, Ryan
<wiki.ral315(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:34 PM, Chad
<innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
In the revisions table, both user name and user
ID are stored.
-Chad
That seems really odd. I don't doubt you, because given problems I've seen
with buggy renames, it makes sense, but why in the world would we duplicate
this information? It seems to violate every principle of database design
and normalization.
--
[[User:Ral315]]
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Because anons don't have an associated user_id.
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Exactly.
Additionally, as long as those rev_user_text columns are kept
up to date with the user's name, it makes a solid attribution from the
database-level. Then third parties can reuse our content and keep the
attribution, all without without getting a dump of the users table.
-Chad