Yeah, it's a bug. However it's also a natural side-effect of these tables still being a reflection of how the page and revision tables used to be.
Namely "curr" and "old". We moved away from this for several reasons. Among them, that having to move rows once they are no longer the "latest" version is undesirable from a database point of view. The new model also provided stable IDs for revisions regardless of whether they are the current revision now.
Files still suffer from the pre-1.5 model (from 2004) whereby files don't have unique ids (other than their file name / page title). And file versions don't have IDs either. Old versions have a filename+timestamp combo as kind-of-unique identifier, but that's about it.
See https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T28741 and https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T589 for the epic task of finalising our migration from 2005 by converting the file tables as well.
— Krinkle
On 19 Aug 2015, at 00:52, Brion Vibber bvibber@wikimedia.org wrote:
I have the impression that was an old bug which got fixed sometime in the last couple years -- it was accidentally using the current time instead of the original upload time. But there will of course be thousands of existing old-version files with the "wrong" prefixes stuck on their filenames...
-- brion
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Daren Welsh darenwelsh@gmail.com wrote:
In the version history of an image (or any attached file in MediaWiki), the page displays "Date/Time" with a link to that version. The timestamp displayed is the upload timestamp of that version. If you look closely, you can see that the real filename includes a different timestamp. This turns out to be the timestamp of when that file was superseded by a subsequent version.
I have looked in the database tables and can see that in the oldimage table, each row has an "oi_archive_name" with the timestamp of when that version was superseded and an "oi_timestamp" of when that version was actually uploaded.
Is there a reason to name the old versions of the files with the superseding timestamp instead of the upload timestamp? It seems to me that the timestamp of when that version was uploaded is more relevant.
Daren
-- __________________ http://enterprisemediawiki.org http://mixcloud.com/darenwelsh http://www.beatportfolio.com _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l