On Wed 21 Dec 2005 09:21:55 +0100, Magnus Manske wrote:
* "stable" = a few selected people can call
a version on an article
"stable" if they deem it good enough for the unprepared reader.
Imagine the following sequence of events:
- an article is marked stable
- the article 'development' version is heavily edited for a while, not
necessarily for the better
- a critical error that needs to be fixed immediately is discovered in
the version marked as stable (this is possible, the review feature
being a process involving humans)
I see three possibilities:
- the stable flag is removed, the mistake is corrected in the
'development' version, which could then be nominated as 'stable' again
- the critical error is corrected in the stable version, making a
separate branch in the article history
(this would mean a rather big addition to the MediaWiki software to
allow for history branches, right?)
- the stable article, with the error corrected, is saved as the latest
'development' version which is then marked stable; the previously
latest 'development' version is still available through article
history
(poor man's version branching, rather horrible I think)
The second solution above (branching) could also be implemented by
allowing just two branches: a 'development' branch and a 'stable'
branch. Or just a separate namespace (if you will) for stable articles,
editable only by users with the appropriate rights.
Leon (aka Oliphaunt)
--
I really didn't foresee the Internet. But then, neither did
the computer industry. Not that that tells us very much, of
course - the computer industry didn't even foresee that the
century was going to end. -- Douglas Adams (1952 - 2001)