Last modified: 2009-08-27 15:37:56 UTC
Gentlemen, visit your personal Special:Watchlist&days=0 Consider these two cases: A) you see the message None of your watched items were edited in the time period displayed. or B) some results are displayed. In both cases the user _has no idea_ of what the period you are displaying is. You must tell him just far back in time you are reporting from! Consider the Unix last(1) command. $ last jidanni :0 Mon Mar 9 02:29 still logged in reboot system boot 2.6.26-1-686 Mon Mar 9 02:16 - 07:18 (05:02) jidanni :0 Fri Mar 6 03:51 - down (05:33) jidanni :0 Fri Mar 6 03:46 - 03:51 (00:04) jidanni :0 Fri Mar 6 02:43 - 03:46 (01:03) reboot system boot 2.6.26-1-686 Fri Mar 6 02:41 - 09:25 (06:43) wtmp begins Tue Mar 3 15:31:09 2009 Here it says that the reporting period starts at Mar 3. That way we know if we are looking back a week, or a month, or a year. Please do likewise. By the way, other Special pages have similar problems: Bug #17750.
Look up the screen just a bit, it says: "Below are the last 0 changes in the last 3 days, as of 00:33, 23 April 2009" (date/time/changes may vary) Marking WORKSFORME.
No it doesn't: if you click "All", the URL gets days=0, and the date information you mentioned disappears!
Reclosing. If you clicked all, then you meant all changes ever. And it's not the default selection on the page, so you had to actively click it anyway (so it's not like it was already selected and you didn't know that)
Created attachment 6072 [details] Finally make sense to the user if he clicks "all". I assume $wgRCMaxAge is the right variable. I also removed trailing whitespace.
Created attachment 6074 [details] Just use $wgRCLinkDays Why of course, how silly of me. $wgRCLinkDays is exactly what should be used here! The administrator can customize it how he sees fit. No need to expose days=0 to the user, as that will be the same as the last choice if the administrator sets $wgRCFilterByAge=true. I could kick myself for not seeing all this at first.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 2452 ***
