[xwiki-devs] Fwd: [xwiki-dev] [Proposal] Document comments should not create new versions
4 Sep
2007
4 Sep
'07
8:15 p.m.
New list address.. see what happens when you go on vacation?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erin Schnabel <ebullient.rain(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sep 4, 2007 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [xwiki-dev] [Proposal] Document comments should not
create new versions
To: xwiki-dev(a)objectweb.org
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..)
On 8/28/07, Catalin Hritcu <catalin.hritcu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
This is not only related to comments but also to tags (also objects)
and maybe also attachments. The behavior you describe here for
comments is taken by confluence and I personally find it more
intuitive -- since it preserves the "forum metaphor" for the comments
(on a forum you can't "revert" what other people say). However it's
very hard to tell what would be best for the users (unless you do a
case study in which you ask 100+ users).
The only question about having it as an option (for each class I
suppose if you want something generic) is how hard it is to implement
and roll-in ?
Catalin
On 8/24/07, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu.dumitriu(a)gmail.com> wrote:
--
'Waste of a good apple' -Samwise Gamgee
--
'Waste of a good apple' -Samwise Gamgee
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Hi,
This is more a matter of opinions. Should a comment increase the
version of a document? I'd say yes, but the view of simple users is
that a comment should not affect the document, as it is something
describing the document, not belonging to the document. So we should
have a parameter that configures this.
WDYT?
Sergiu
--
http://purl.org/net/sergiu
--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the xwiki-dev(a)objectweb.org mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:xwiki-dev-unsubscribe@objectweb.org
For general help: mailto:sympa@objectweb.org?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws
--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the xwiki-dev(a)objectweb.org mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:xwiki-dev-unsubscribe@objectweb.org
For general help: mailto:sympa@objectweb.org?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws
6 Sep
6 Sep
4:28 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] Fwd: [xwiki-dev] [Proposal] Document comments should not create new versions
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.
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..)
Sergiu
--
http://purl.org/net/sergiu
4:41 p.m.
New subject: [xwiki-devs] Fwd: [xwiki-dev] [Proposal] Document comments should not create new versions
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..)
>
6220
days inactive
6222
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Erin Schnabel -
Sergiu Dumitriu -
Vincent Massol