On Sun, Aug 27, 2006 at 02:13:08PM +0200, Ligulem wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Are HFCS's bad? They also reduce the chances of edit conflict don't they?
(I assume HFCS = "high frequency consecutive saves"). Some people don't like them (they inflate edit count, use resources). Thus I try to reduce them myself. But I'm prone to HFCS myself (not on templates!).
I concur with Steve; my mental model for Save Early and Often is the shorter the window you use, the less likely you are to have to clean up an edit conflict.
The thing I don't get in this mockup is, why would you have multiple drafts for one article?
Why limit to only one? I can imagine having several backups, going to older variants if I see I'm on a wrong track.
An undo function comes to mind. Revert before published.
That might lead to private revision trees per user and page, forked at some time in the past. Duh.
Indeed; this could well be overimplemented, if one wasn't careful.
I too tend to think, Rob, that one draft per user/page is a limit... and even that might have ... notable effects on the DBMS. Separate table, at the least, I would assume...
Cheers, -- jra