Last modified: 2014-11-18 18:07:16 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia has migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports should be created and updated in Wikimedia Phabricator instead. Please create an account in Phabricator and add your Bugzilla email address to it.
Wikimedia Bugzilla is read-only. If you try to edit or create any bug report in Bugzilla you will be shown an intentional error message.
In order to access the Phabricator task corresponding to a Bugzilla report, just remove "static-" from its URL.
You could still run searches in Bugzilla or access your list of votes but bug reports will obviously not be up-to-date in Bugzilla.
Bug 11550 - Edit summary is too short
Edit summary is too short
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 4714
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
Page editing (Other open bugs)
All All
: Normal enhancement with 1 vote (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-10-03 10:15 UTC by Tisza Gergő
Modified: 2014-11-18 18:07 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Description Tisza Gergő 2007-10-03 10:15:37 UTC
The current 200-character limit is far too short. For example the default undo message is 90 chars plus three times the username plus the section name; this can easily take up the available space in itself, and one would often want to write an undo reason too. As page histories are getting longer, reverts more frequent and (with the focus being shifted to quality) history-analyzing tools more widespread, it is important to include as much information into the summary as possible and not force users to delete eg. which revision they have reverted so they can fit in the reason. The max length should be at least the double of the current size.
Comment 1 Daniel Kinzler 2007-10-03 10:30:19 UTC
There is an absolute limit of 256 bytes (not characters) imposed by the database - it's using the TINYBLOB type, using a type for longer text supposedly would make access to the revision table much slower (which is a large table, and accessed a lot).

It would be much nicer to use this field only for the user-provided comment, and use extra db fields for storing meta-info about the revision, like the base revision (we alread have a field for that, which is not being used afaik) or more detailed undo merge/info, rollback/undo flag, etc. This would also be nicer for analysis tools (especially when working directly on the database), and could also be used for a more structured display.
Comment 2 Matt 2007-10-03 10:32:10 UTC
Maybe make a TINYBLOB for user comment, and a TINYBLOB for software auto-comment (like undo message etc)?
Comment 3 Daniel Kinzler 2007-10-03 10:37:46 UTC
@matt: yes, that would be a possibility. the auto-comment shouldn't be a comment though, but in a machine redable form (maybe a serialized php structure). This would allow for easy re-formatting and unambiguous processing. 

However, it may still be cut off, which would be fatal for machine-readable data - so it might have to be a larger text chunk - not sure what the performance implications of that would be (probably it wouldn't matter as long as you don't retrieve that field, but I'm not sure). Also, using separate fields would make automated analysis on the database a *lot* more fast and powerfull. But separate fields are not simple to do because there may be a lot of different types of revision meta info.

So, I don't see a simple & nice solution. This needs more thought, I guess.
Comment 4 Tisza Gergő 2007-10-03 22:01:02 UTC
Database flags which are reflected in the page (by, say, adding certain classes to the lines in the page history which are rollbacks/backrolled edits) would be certainly nice. One potential use would be an "abridged" page history where instead a series of vandalisms or an edit war a message like "10 reverted edits not shown" could be displayed. Also, it might speed up the computation of the revert-based trust metric the UCSC wiki lab is working on.
Comment 5 Rob Church 2007-10-03 23:26:04 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 4714 ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.