Last modified: 2009-01-27 08:48:03 UTC
When a page has both pristine revisions and quality revisions, and quality versions are set to have precedence over sighted revisions, pristine versions should have precedence over quality versions. Alternately, If using pristine versions, there should be an option on Special:Stabilization to give pristine versions precedence over quality/sighted versions.
"pristine" version were mainly meant to just be markers for FA level revisions. It isn't really practical to have them override anything, and thus the code to set them to do so (per page) is commented out.
Well, basically what I'd like to do is have a system so that the highest quality revision will have precedence, (there's only 3 levels so sighted/quality/pristine would work for this) but FlaggedRevs currently makes no distinction (as far as precedence is concerned) between anything other than quality/not-quality.
Done in r46280, r46283
Something seems to be ... backwards. The relevant bit of the config I have is: $wgFlaggedRevTags = array( 'protection' => 2 ); $wgFlaggedRevValues = 3; $wgFlaggedRevPristine = 3; $wgFlaggedRevsPrecedence = 2; However, when setting a page to show "The latest pristine revision; if not present, then the latest quality or sighted one," quality revisions override pristine revisions. An older quality revision is shown as the stable version even if the current rev is pristine. I checked the database, fr_quality is being set correctly.
Fixed in r46319
This is clearly asking for an evolution of the stablesettings system towards a more general "where on the flag scale do you want the boundary between immediately-visible edits and 'draft' edits to be set?" sliding scale. It would only be a UI change, and a fairly intuitive one at that, to combine the two radiobox options we currently present into one scale: """Select the minimum quality of revision that will be immediately visible. Edits flagged as this quality or higher will be immediately visible to all users; edits of lower quality will require review to be included 0 featured 0 verified 0 sighted X unsighted """ Good idea? Is it worth opening a bug for this?
