Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:05:19 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 14255 - Depreciating older reviewed versions shouldn't be possible
Depreciating older reviewed versions shouldn't be possible
Product: MediaWiki extensions
Classification: Unclassified
FlaggedRevs (Other open bugs)
All All
: Lowest minor (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Aaron Schulz
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2008-05-25 04:02 UTC by mnh
Modified: 2011-03-13 18:05 UTC (History)
0 users

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


Description mnh 2008-05-25 04:02:23 UTC
Depreciating older versions can result in loss of
transparency and subsequently mislead onlookers.

As this a somewhat complex scenario, I'll explain
using an example. Consider the following sequence
of events (which is btw the abstraction of a real

- revision 1 is reviewed by user A
- vandalized revision 2 is created and reviewed by user B
- a typo is corrected in revision 3, reviewed by user C
- user D removes vandalism in revision 4
- B depreciates revision 2

Obviously, user B is the one who did the sloppy work; 
the revision history however doesn't reflect this:

revision 4   user D   [sighted by User D] (remove vandalism)
revision 3   someone  [sighted by User C] (typo correction)
revision 2   vandal
revision 1   someone  [sighted by User A] (initial review)

Anyone not checking logs would conclude that user C 
erroneously reviewed the diff rev1-rev3, when in fact
s/he did nothing but review the typo correction rev2-rev3.

As this will inevitably lead to people barking up the wrong
tree and since I fail to see any actual advantage with
depreciating old versions, I'd strongly suggest to just
deactivate it and allow depreciating the current stable
version only. 

Regards, mnh
Comment 1 Aaron Schulz 2008-05-25 18:22:12 UTC
I don't like the idea of making it impossible to unreview old revisions. Seems icky. And what if vandalism snuck in, or an error was found in an "excellent" revision and someone wanted to lower its status?
Comment 2 Aaron Schulz 2008-05-28 00:54:26 UTC
I'd prefer some of the log tweaks over this.

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