Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:06:34 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 2816 - When I click on "New Edit," it only shows one new edit, not both!
When I click on "New Edit," it only shows one new edit, not both!
Product: MediaWiki
Classification: Unclassified
History/Diffs (Other open bugs)
PC Windows XP
: Lowest normal (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
Depends on:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2005-07-12 10:33 UTC by Gordon Wayne Watts
Modified: 2011-03-13 18:06 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

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


Description Gordon Wayne Watts 2005-07-12 10:33:00 UTC
Hello Wikimedia Tech friends: When I went to
title=User_talk:GordonWattsDotCom&diff=18607836&oldid=18576721 I then clicked on "Newer edit →," 
and I moved from the Revision as of 16:29, 11 July 2005 (SlimVirgin posted a message) to what was 
CALLED the "Current revision," but in fact, it was signed at 22:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC) by 
[[User:Matthew Stannard|Matt Stan]]. I knew this was wrong because I had seen my edit history, 
which showed that Matt had made an two edits in a row, apparently correcting or adding something. 
So, I went to my edit history and compared the two version -to see if Matt had anything new to add; 
He apparently clicked twice or something, and the next entry was the same except for one minute 
later. THIS time, I missed nothing, but this type of error troubles me. Three questions: (1) What 
caused the problem; (2) What is the likely solution; (3) When Wiki servers store successive 
versions, do they have to store the whole page (using LOTS of memory), or, instead, do they store 
merely the "changes" and "reconstruct" the newer versions from an "older version" plus a "revision" 
database, which would be smaller, but prone not unlike putting all your eggs in one basket 
(the "old version"), which has a downside: What if the basket cracks: Your eggs fall out.

My apologies if question 3 is not exactly on topic, but (A) I'm curious; and, (B) If we all 
understand how the thing works, then it can help us (me included) to being able to move towards 
solutions more quickly, if we use this knowledge right. Thx, --GordonWattsDotCom AKA Gordon Wayne 
Watts, Lakeland, FL, USA
Comment 1 MZMcBride 2008-10-20 07:15:18 UTC
Resolving this as WONTFIX. shows the crux of the issue. It would seem that either Matthew submitted an edit that contained ~~~~ twice or the server had a hiccup. Either way, because the two versions were different, the server logged an additional revision. Yes, rather wasteful in this instance, but better to have more revisions than missing ones. This really isn't the kind of thing to worry about memory usage-wise, however. As for the more general question asked in this bug, yes, every revision stores the full text of the page.

Certain checks for edit conflicts and duplicate submits have been reported in various other bugs or have been resolved since the filing of this bug. Thus I'm resolving this as WONTFIX as there really isn't anything actionable here.

In the future, technical glitches of this sort would probably best be reported first to the technical village pump <>.

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