- From: Markus Krötzsch <mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
- Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2008 14:21:26 +0100
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: "public-wiki-dev@w3.org" <public-wiki-dev@w3.org>, "pfps@research.bell-labs.com" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Message-Id: <200801041421.34002.mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
Comments inline. <snip> > > > > A reaonable editing system would have *at least* the following changes > > from the Wiki editing system: > > > > - A user-entered description of the changes would be *required* for > > each > > change. > > - The "minor edit" flag would have to be entered for each change. > > - Change descriptions could be changed after the fact. > > - Speculative changes (i.e., a different branch) would be possible, > > and > > could be merged into the main branch. That's the stuff that people at MIT make their theses about ;-) [1] Not sure whether any stable system with this capability exists, but asking the author would be an option. > > - Diffs could be generated based on a set of changes. > > - Diffs would be insensitive to non-visible changes in whitespace. > > (Unfortunately the Wiki language makes determination of non- > > visibility > > hard.) Yes, that's exactly the problem. > > > > > > If the first two changes above were made to the Wiki editing system > > then > > the WG could proceed in the following limping manner: > > > > - Each change would be for a particular purpose. > > - Changes related to an issue would have the issue number in their > > description. > > - Changes made solely for editorial reasons would so state, and > > would be > > flagged as minor. > > - Other changes would have a description of the purpose of the change. > > - Issue resolutions would just point to which documents were changed. > > - Publication would be approved for a document and not a particular > > version of a document. Non-minor changes to a document during the > > publication process would have to be approved by the WG chairs. > > > > This proposed process is definitely not ideal, but appears to me to be > > acceptable and needs only minor changes to the Wiki editing system. > > > > (It turns out that it is possible for the WG to partly "implement" the > > first change, by requiring that all WG members change their > > Preferences > > -> Editing -> Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary to on. > > Unfortunately, the way this preference works is particularly annoying, > > and much too easy to bypass.) To make this a default for new users, add $wgDefaultUserOptions['forceeditsummary'] = true; to LocalSettings.php. But to really force it upon everybody without allowing people to turn it off, two patches to MediaWiki are needed. First, change the file inlcudes/User.php by modifying the function getOption(). E.g. one could just replace 1560: return trim( $this->mOptions[$oname] ); by 1560: return ($oname == 'forceeditsummary')?true:trim( $this->mOptions[$oname] ); Second, to make it impossible for people to override this by saving again, change includes/EditPage.php 573: $this->allowBlankSummary = $request->getBool( 'wpIgnoreBlankSummary' ); to 573: $this->allowBlankSummary = false; In this case, you should also edit the page MediaWiki:missingsummary to show an adjusted warning message. -- Markus [1] http://wikimania2007.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proceedings:BMH1 -- Markus Krötzsch Institut AIFB, Universät Karlsruhe (TH), 76128 Karlsruhe phone +49 (0)721 608 7362 fax +49 (0)721 608 5998 mak@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de www http://korrekt.org
Received on Friday, 4 January 2008 13:21:44 UTC