| At line 37 changed one line |
| One thing that immediately comes to mind is this scenario: someone spends say, 59 minutes editing a page, in multiple sessions. In that last minute they accidentally delete a substantial portion of the page and click on the Save button. In the current situation, they could just go back to the last revision, but it ''seems'' that in your proposal they would lose the entire hour's work. I'm not sure I'd even want this as an option, honestly. I don't mind the disk space, and having multiple revisions of a page during an editing session might be considered by some to be a Very Good Thing. As a writer, I might like a paragraph I had deleted twenty minutes ago, and currently I can recover that if I'd saved it. Revision control is a godsend. Perhaps I'm not understanding your proposal correctly — are the minor revisions created by a single user during that hour also stored in some way, or after one hour is there just one stored, recoverable revision? |
| One thing that immediately comes to mind is this scenario: someone spends say, 59 minutes editing a page, in multiple sessions. In that last minute they accidentally delete a substantial portion of the page and click on the Save button. In the current situation, they could just go back to the last revision, but it ''seems'' that in your proposal they would lose the entire hour's work. I'm not sure I'd even want this as an option, honestly. I don't mind the disk space, and having multiple revisions of a page during an editing session might be considered by some to be a Very Good Thing. As a writer, I might like a paragraph I had deleted twenty minutes ago, and currently I can recover that if I'd saved it. Revision control is a godsend. Perhaps I'm not understanding your proposal correctly — are the minor revisions created by a single user during that hour also stored in some way, or after one hour is there just one stored, recoverable revision? |
| At line 43 changed one line |
| In regard to Janna's point: Can you explain a scenario where it would not work in a conflict situation (users A and B): |
| In regard to Janne's point: Can you explain a scenario where it would not work in a conflict situation (users A and B): |
| At line 48 changed one line |
| Result is one version |
| -> Result is one version |
| At line 52 changed 2 lines |
| B starts to edit |
| B saves |
| B starts to edit\\ |
| B saves\\ |
| At line 55 changed one line |
| Result is three versions (A B A) |
| -> Result is three versions (A B A) |
| At line 62 added 40 lines |
|
| ---- |
|
| Gregor: if setting the property to zero reproduces the current situation, I certainly have no problem with it, and we might investigate setting it to 60 minutes to see the impact. We're currently in a prototyping mode right now, so if things are a bit unstable, our ''bleeding edge'' users won't mind so much. It's after our director begins using the wiki that we have to be more cautious... -- MurrayAltheim |
|
| ---- |
|
| Is there any compelling reason to have JSPWiki decide autonomously (based on 60min) whether or not a new version is required to be saved? |
| As alternative, we could add a checkbox next to the save button of the edit-page, where the user can indicate whether or not the change is editorial (and thus a save would not require a new version). |
| Eventually, we could have wiki make a suggestion based on the time-span: when editing within one hour, the checkbox could be checked. |
|
| -- [DF|DirkFrederickx] |
|
| ---- |
|
| I like this idea, however it is implemented. For now, I plan to incorporate the Gregor's changes into the [JDBC Providers] as an optional feature. |
| -- [Daggerbox] |
|
| ---- |
|
| There is a possible solution for this in [VersionOverwrite]. |
|
| Janne, would you be willing to takes this in ? I think this is really a generic feature increasing usability of the version history a lot ! |
| -- [DF|DirkFrederickx] |
|
|
| ---- |
|
| I'll consider it once we get 2.4 stable... At the moment any new feature will only make things later. |
|
| -- JanneJalkanen |
|
|
| ---- |
|
| @Janne: v2.4 is stable now. Any chance this Idea can make it into the next release ? --[DF|DirkFrederickx] |
|
|
|
|
