[Wikiquality-l] Reverts

[P. Birken]

Well, you can skip the comparison when using the rollback-tools. With
manual reverts, the usual procedure could apply. Otherwise, I think
this is a good idea, although this brings me to a question that came
up when testing with templates:

It seems that templates are not stored with a stable version anymore?
Is that correct, Aaron? Because if they are or will be again in the
future, this leads to a problem with automatic reverts.

Bye,

Philipp

2007/10/5, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org>:
> Of all the issues identified so far, reverts strike me as the most
> significant. You revert vandalism, you don't want to have to re-apply
> sighting. This happens right now both on manual and automatic reverts.
>
> We're already applying sighting automatically when the user is in the
> editor group and the current version is sighted. How about also doing
> so if the current version is not sighted, _and_ the text of the
> submission is identical to the text of the most recently sighted
> revision?
>
> There would be some performance hit due to the comparison, but
> hopefully it wouldn't be too bad as it would only kick in on reverts.
> Is the basic idea sound? Is there a simpler way?
>
> --
> Toward Peace, Love & Progress:
> Erik
>
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikiquality-l mailing list
> Wikiquality-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikiquality-l
>