Magnus Manske wrote:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
Magnus Manske wrote:
Guillaume Blanchard wrote:
I have already implemented most of this as an extension. Exceptions:
* Only one version can be stable/validated at any time.
Why? To save space into the DB?
No. I just didn't see the point of having multiple stable versions. One
will do just fine.
Also, the "stable version" concept will be confusing to newcomers.
Suppose you get the stable version by default, and decide to edit it.
You'll be served the source text of the current version. WTF?
*Several* stable versions will be even more confusing, with little benefit.
We will probably need to have the ability to rate versions as being
"stable version candidates", otherwise it will be difficult to move from
an older stable version to a newer.
By being able to rate/tag a newer version as a stable version candidate,
it could then be voted/rated/approved to either eventually become the
next stable version, or to be supplanted by another candidate. Users
should be able to see not only the history of all versions, but of (say)
all versions ever marked as stable, or the larger set of versions marked
as candidates for stability.
-- Neil