We could save a lot of space by summarizing directly subsequent edits made by one user into a single edit. User foo edits article bar 10 times, and for each edit, the previous one is deleted. This would also reduce clutter in RC. Just check if OLD contains a top revision by the same user and delete it before inserting the new row (preferably as one transaction).
To avoid involuntary overwriting of one's own words, we could do this only if the previous edit had no edit comment, and occurred less than 10 minutes ago.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Erik
Tried my "advanced Recend Changes"?
Erik Moeller wrote:
We could save a lot of space by summarizing directly subsequent edits made by one user into a single edit. User foo edits article bar 10 times, and for each edit, the previous one is deleted. This would also reduce clutter in RC. Just check if OLD contains a top revision by the same user and delete it before inserting the new row (preferably as one transaction).
To avoid involuntary overwriting of one's own words, we could do this only if the previous edit had no edit comment, and occurred less than 10 minutes ago.
Thoughts?
Regards,
Erik
On Mit, 2003-02-05 at 13:40, Magnus Manske wrote:
Tried my "advanced Recend Changes"?
I use and enjoy it. But this is a different matter. Even with RC+ you have benefits from summarizing edits in the actual table, since you do not have to unfold edits made by a single user to see the edit text. Then there's the history and contributions functions, which are all cluttered by a large number of subsequent edits, and of course the OLD table grows hideously large.
Regards,
Erik
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 01:31:47PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
We could save a lot of space by summarizing directly subsequent edits made by one user into a single edit. User foo edits article bar 10 times, and for each edit, the previous one is deleted. This would also reduce clutter in RC. Just check if OLD contains a top revision by the same user and delete it before inserting the new row (preferably as one transaction).
To avoid involuntary overwriting of one's own words, we could do this only if the previous edit had no edit comment, and occurred less than 10 minutes ago.
Thoughts?
This isn't any good. If one breaks something by accident, it should be possible to restore it.
On Mit, 2003-02-05 at 13:57, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
This isn't any good. If one breaks something by accident, it should be possible to restore it.
What kind of mistake? Consider these cases:
1) User edits text, does something wrong. Saves text. Notices mistake. Edits text again, fixes mistake. 2) User makes major edits to text. Saves text. Notices minor mistake, edits text again, accidentally deletes two paragraphs and saves. Previous text is *not* overwritten because it has an edit comment. 3) Other user notices major error/vandalism by user. Reverts to previous edit by other user.
Where are the problems?
Regards,
Erik
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 02:14:02PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
Where are the problems?
First, user edits a page. Then, the same user edits it again, but due to mouse slippery, browser sending problems or something like that, broken version of article is submitted.
Such things happen sometimes.
On Mit, 2003-02-05 at 15:52, Tomasz Wegrzanowski wrote:
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 02:14:02PM +0100, Erik Moeller wrote:
Where are the problems?
First, user edits a page. Then, the same user edits it again, but due to mouse slippery, browser sending problems or something like that, broken version of article is submitted.
Such things happen sometimes.
True, and as I said, we can check if the user has entered an edit comment (good indication for a major change) and if he has, the subsequent edit does not replace the previous one.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org