On 2/12/07, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
There have been several requests for per-page access permissions. There have been implementations of this. They just did not make it into the MediaWiki SVN. This is a shame because as a consequence you have a fork. Forking is really unproductive. With some regularity the same issue raises its ugly head again; often resulting in a new fork.
I'm not aware of any forks. I'm aware of a large-scale patch that aims to implement this, that I think is kept up to date with the stable releases.
On 2/12/07, Mark Clements gmane@kennel17.co.uk wrote:
So, out of interest, are you saying that even if somebody implemented this cleanly and completely and provided a fully tested patch against HEAD, it would still not be accepted to the main development branch?
Brion has strongly implied that in the past. That's what WONTFIX means: not that we aren't willing to code it, but that we aren't even willing to accept it. But it's his decision, of course.
On 2/12/07, Alex Powell alexp@exscien.com wrote:
Possibly this change has been checked in error - it was from a branch. Still it begs the question: has the position on this changed, as this change is there meaning that the code would need to be reviewed to put in page protection. This really is the last thing that needs to go into the trunk.
I'm not clear on what you mean here. The page_restrictions table was just a restructuring of the schema. Without having looked at the actual code, I assume that pr_type can only be 'edit' or 'move', just as has always been true. I think it's been possible for a long time to add other stuff to a global like $wgRestrictionTypes, but I'm not aware of whether that actually works, and doubt that whether it works or not has been changed by the existence of a new table.