We could mix these two approaches, but the working copy going behind the
latest change is the main issue. We're not talking about git, and it is
natural text to be merged, unlike the programming languages. That is why
I'm certain that every draft stored at the server-side should be treated as
outdated, a new change is contributed before the draft is actually used at
the first time. That is why I think it's expensive. We pay "money" for
nothing, for a spurious machine time.
That's why it is better to work locally at the client-side.
And one more moment: drafts should work slightly different when the user
creates a new article. Every new article has Article ID == 0, that is why a
different way to store the drafts (dedicated named drafts?) should be
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 6:18 PM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Bartosz Dziewoński
On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:32:17 +0200, Chad
What about the Drafts extension?
It seems to be slightly different, saving the drafts server-side instead
client-side, and apparently only on demand or
every few minutes instead
Granted, but it's worth keeping in mind since these are all possible
solutions to people losing their hard work :)
Wikitech-l mailing list
Павел Селіцкас/Pavel Selitskas
Wizardist @ Wikimedia projects