On 11/22/06, Simetrical Simetrical+wikitech@gmail.com wrote:
It's just that there's no edit count stored directly in the database at present (at least not that I can see in a quick glance at the schema). You have to do a count, which is O(N). An edit count could be added, presumably, if it were deemed useful, but I'm not the person to ask about whether that would slow things down or not, or otherwise be deemed undesirable.
Yeah. It would apparently have some use, if people keep making requests for things which rely on it. Well, let's do this officially, anyway:
Brion, may we please have an edit count field?
Steve
"Steve Bennett" stevagewp@gmail.com wrote in message news:b8ceeef70611211644k52843731vf4ac8626bf1c486@mail.gmail.com...
On 11/22/06, Simetrical
Simetrical+wikitech@gmail.com wrote:
It's just that there's no edit count stored directly in the database at present (at least not that I can see in a quick glance at the schema). You have to do a count, which is O(N). An edit count could be added, presumably, if it were deemed useful, but I'm not the person to ask about whether that would slow things down or not, or otherwise be deemed undesirable.
Yeah. It would apparently have some use, if people keep making requests for things which rely on it. Well, let's do this officially, anyway:
Brion, may we please have an edit count field?
Steve
...and if that 'official method' doesn't work, you could always try logging it on Bugzilla....
:-)
- Mark Clements (HappyDog)
On 11/22/06, Mark Clements gmane@kennel17.co.uk wrote:
...and if that 'official method' doesn't work, you could always try logging it on Bugzilla....
Somehow, bugzilla does a really bad job of capturing "tongue in cheek"...
Steve
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org