6 Sep
2007
6 Sep
'07
4:41 p.m.
On Sep 6, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
If we decide that comments should not increment the
version, then the
changes in the code are small, just set a few settings to false.
However, the problems come when dealing with versions, history, diff,
revert. Comments will still be attached objects, and working with them
will be as it is now, except that you won't be able to revert between
two comments. If we want to make the revert work differently for them,
too, then there are some other small/medium changes needed, but it
will be more like a workaround, and not a proper fix.
We could make comments a new kind of entity, that is not stored the
way normal objects are stored, but I'm totally against it. That's just
another special case (the first being tags, which needed some special
code in the core). Ideally, the comment feature should be optional,
and should be completely separable into a XAR.
+1, which is why I'm reluctant to make an exception for the comments.
I'm also not sure why it's problem that document version increases
when a comment is added for example.
-Vincent
On 9/4/07, Erin Schnabel
<ebullient.rain(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think adding comments should increment the version, while
> adding tags, perhaps, should. Tags are an attribute of the document,
> in that they classify the document text. Comments are not part of
> the
> document content, are often edited separately (by the comment
> author),
> and can be deleted. The sticky issue is that attached objects are
> stored as part of the versioned content in the archive...
>
> How are changes that don't bump the version currently handled RE:
> archive? (sorry for being ignorant w/ this part..)
>