Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:05:02 UTC
As an aid to quality control, I propose a system of revision levels, which can be selected when editing a revision, and changed from the revision history. The available revision levels would be defined in the site configuration, along with a numeric ranking that defines that level's precedence over other levels. The revision level would control which version of the article gets displayed to users, and the levels would be ranked such that the highest revision level would be displayed rather than the highest revision id. Default levels should be shipped for published and draft versions, such that published versions are preferred over draft versions. With appropriate permissions, this could also offer an viable alternative form of page protection which would still allow continued contributions to an article under protection, while discouraging vandalism.
Seems to be basically a generalization of stable versions (bug 3303). Is the generalization (more than two "revision levels" possible) useful, considering the interface ramifications of allowing unlimited levels? Things like having one tab for stable and one for unstable, or having a single button to mark a version stable/unstable, are complicated considerably by the possibility of an arbitrary number of possibilities to choose from, and I don't know if I see the point.
Much of this is done in FlaggedRevs, the extra complexity is unlikely to be implemented anywhere though.
