On Dec 1, 2003, at 17:43, Evan Prodromou wrote:

Man, these tables drive me crazy. Is there a good reason I'm missing that we don't it like this?

    +------------------+            +---------------+
    | page             |            | page_version  |
    +------------------+            +---------------+
    | page_id          |      ----> | version_id    |
    | current_version  | ----/      | page_id       |
    +------------------+            | timestamp     |
                                    | user          |
                                    | ...           |
                                    | data          |
                                    +---------------+

I believe I've already advocated this for the next major revision of the software. (We can transform 'old' into the revisions table and keep the present old_id numbers intact, then add the present 'cur' data after it.)

But first, we branch a stable release of the current version. We _are_ in feature freeze, supposedly.

-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)