The part I don't like is that there is no trace
The trace is here: http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2005-March/002581.html
As I said, I for one don't expect people to go search the mailing lists (and which one? wikitech? wikipedial? foundation? wikiversity?) for what happened on the wiki, but just the local logs - which don't contain anything afaik.
But then, that's my personal point of view :)
Regards,
Erik
Regards
Nicolas
Accédez au courrier électronique de La Poste : www.laposte.net ; 3615 LAPOSTENET (0,34/mn) ; tél : 08 92 68 13 50 (0,34/mn)
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:24:01 +0100, Nicolas Weeger nicolas.weeger@laposte.net wrote:
The part I don't like is that there is no trace
It would be a nice optional feature to turn on database-auditing for all changes to the database, which would provide a trace for such things. But that doesn't exist yet. I agree that without such a solution, it's most transparent to do such things as a logged-in user (with sysop capacity, if neccessary) rather than as a developer. +sj+
Sj wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:24:01 +0100, Nicolas Weeger nicolas.weeger@laposte.net wrote:
The part I don't like is that there is no trace
It would be a nice optional feature to turn on database-auditing for all changes to the database, which would provide a trace for such things. But that doesn't exist yet. I agree that without such a solution, it's most transparent to do such things as a logged-in user (with sysop capacity, if neccessary) rather than as a developer. +sj+
Hoi, Given the large amount of changes to our database, database-auditing would be expensive in resources and it would be over and above the current history that we maintain. This might be something that we do not want as this may also impair the scalability of our application. :) Thanks, GerardM
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org