On 2/12/07, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)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(a)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(a)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.