Yes, my original change was to account for it as a right.
My problems with this change is:
1) Some of the code should perhaps be moved to another function rather than
embedded as it was. Things just looked reeeally funky ;)
2) If I, say, set the page to 'oversight' only, and give Oversights
'protect', that's nice, but last time I checked, anyone else with the
protect right, like Sysops could just unprotect and edit it. Also, how would
that work with 'editprotected'? This is a problem with any permission
"above" 'protect'.
3) The nature of the code. I don't like it iterating through the permissions
array. What about extensions/live hacks that alter rights and such?
4) Even for levels "lower" that 'protect', if all groups that have it
must
also have 'protect', why not just grant those groups a new right, and use
that?
That said, I'm not sure how useful this is, at least as it is.
Alexandre Emsenhuber wrote:
Le 21.6.2008 5:17, « aaron(a)svn.wikimedia.org » <aaron(a)svn.wikimedia.org> a
écrit :
Revision: 36519
Author: aaron
Date: 2008-06-21 03:17:35 +0000 (Sat, 21 Jun 2008)
Log Message:
-----------
* Revert r36478; I don't see the point in this cryptic code
* Restore r36273 as explain on mailing list
Modified Paths:
--------------
trunk/phase3/includes/Article.php
trunk/phase3/includes/ProtectionForm.php
trunk/phase3/includes/Title.php
The problem is that if you want to introduce a new protection level (e.g.
userrights to allow only bureaucrats to edit that page) and that all
groups
that have this right also have the "protect" right (wich is correct if you
give bureaucrats the protect right), then you should be able to use
cascade
protection for this level. Note that the protection level should be an
right, and not a group (execpt for "sysop" kept for b/c) and it's why
there's an loop on $wgGroupPermission (see also Simetrical's message on
brion's revert of r36273).
This code only allows cascade with the protect level, for a normal
install,
it works as expected, but for custom levels (as I mentionned before), it
doesn't work as only can have cascade on one level so I really don't see
the
point to have "protect" hardcoded in that check.
--ialex
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--MediaWiki-CVS--SVN%3A--36519--trunk-phase3-inc…
Sent from the Wikipedia Developers mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.