Last modified: 2006-11-12 23:58:48 UTC
I think it would be a good idea to marge consecutive edits of an article from the same user. This would make navigating the history of an article easier and save much disk space on the Wikimedia servers.
1. There are good reasons to keep the edits separate, when reviewing changes, etc. and to make reverting individual change sets easier 2. Disk space is not an issue
* Disk space is much cheaper than CPU. * Edit comments would get lost, or loose their context. * Permanent links will break. * Processing of complaints about explicit language or similar in an article will become much harder. => Closing as WONTFIX.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 7062 ***
Ok then, perhaps Wikimedia has virtually limitless resources because of its success, but plenty of people use the MediaWiki software and might find it a useful feature, optional or otherwise. It shouldn't have any real impact on CPU, it just means merging new edits with the previous instead of creating a new edit in the event that it's from the same user. Permanent links won't break in the sense of being "broken". It's more like when a user edits his post in a forum. You wouldn't call a link to the post broken just because the user corrected a mistake or changed his mind about something. Processing complaints wouldn't be harder, that's why I'm only proposing the merging of consecutive edits from the same user. If he vandalizes a page then someone reverts it back that breaks his sequence of edits making them permanent in history. I realize this is somewhat of a fundamental change, but I think it makes sense. This could also be implemented much more easily, and compatibly, by simply having it a different optional way to output a page's history. That is, the consecutive edits get shown as one user-edit which perhaps has a link to show all the edits that encompasses.
If you think it would be a good idea to have edits *visually* merged when viewing page histories, open a separate bug for that. They aren't going to be merged in the database. And if you insist on reopening something, please make it bug 7062, which deals with the same thing and predates this one. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 7062 ***
Will do. If saved disk space wouldn't even be beneficial then that is a better idea.
See bug #7904.
