[Proposal] Document comments should not create new versions

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[Proposal] Document comments should not create new versions

Sergiu Dumitriu
Hi,

This is more a matter of opinions. Should a comment increase the
version of a document? I'd say yes, but the view of simple users is
that a comment should not affect the document, as it is something
describing the document, not belonging to the document. So we should
have a parameter that configures this.

WDYT?
Sergiu
--
http://purl.org/net/sergiu



--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the [hidden email] mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:[hidden email]
For general help: mailto:[hidden email]?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Proposal] Document comments should not create new versions

Catalin Hritcu
Hi,

This is not only related to comments but also to tags (also objects)
and maybe also attachments.  The behavior you describe here for
comments is taken by confluence and I personally find it more
intuitive -- since it preserves the "forum metaphor" for the comments
(on a forum you can't "revert" what other people say). However it's
very hard to tell what would be best for the users (unless you do a
case study in which you ask 100+ users).

The only question about having it as an option (for each class I
suppose if you want something generic) is how hard it is to implement
and roll-in ?

Catalin

On 8/24/07, Sergiu Dumitriu <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This is more a matter of opinions. Should a comment increase the
> version of a document? I'd say yes, but the view of simple users is
> that a comment should not affect the document, as it is something
> describing the document, not belonging to the document. So we should
> have a parameter that configures this.
>
> WDYT?
> Sergiu
> --
> http://purl.org/net/sergiu
>
>
>
> --
> You receive this message as a subscriber of the [hidden email] mailing list.
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[hidden email]
> For general help: mailto:[hidden email]?subject=help
> ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws
>
>


--
You receive this message as a subscriber of the [hidden email] mailing list.
To unsubscribe: mailto:[hidden email]
For general help: mailto:[hidden email]?subject=help
ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Fwd: [xwiki-dev] [Proposal] Document comments should not create new versions

ebullient
New list address.. see what happens when you go on vacation?

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Erin Schnabel <[hidden email]>
Date: Sep 4, 2007 2:14 PM
Subject: Re: [xwiki-dev] [Proposal] Document comments should not
create new versions
To: [hidden email]


I don't think adding comments should increment the version, while
adding tags, perhaps, should. Tags are an attribute of the document,
in that they classify the document text.  Comments are not part of the
document content, are often edited separately (by the comment author),
and can be deleted.  The sticky issue is that attached objects are
stored as part of the versioned content in the archive...

How are changes that don't bump the version currently handled RE:
archive? (sorry for being ignorant w/ this part..)



On 8/28/07, Catalin Hritcu <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This is not only related to comments but also to tags (also objects)
> and maybe also attachments.  The behavior you describe here for
> comments is taken by confluence and I personally find it more
> intuitive -- since it preserves the "forum metaphor" for the comments
> (on a forum you can't "revert" what other people say). However it's
> very hard to tell what would be best for the users (unless you do a
> case study in which you ask 100+ users).
>
> The only question about having it as an option (for each class I
> suppose if you want something generic) is how hard it is to implement
> and roll-in ?
>
> Catalin
>
> On 8/24/07, Sergiu Dumitriu <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > This is more a matter of opinions. Should a comment increase the
> > version of a document? I'd say yes, but the view of simple users is
> > that a comment should not affect the document, as it is something
> > describing the document, not belonging to the document. So we should
> > have a parameter that configures this.
> >
> > WDYT?
> > Sergiu
> > --
> > http://purl.org/net/sergiu
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > You receive this message as a subscriber of the [hidden email] mailing list.
> > To unsubscribe: mailto:[hidden email]
> > For general help: mailto:[hidden email]?subject=help
> > ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> You receive this message as a subscriber of the [hidden email] mailing list.
> To unsubscribe: mailto:[hidden email]
> For general help: mailto:[hidden email]?subject=help
> ObjectWeb mailing lists service home page: http://www.objectweb.org/wws
>
>


--
'Waste of a good apple' -Samwise Gamgee


--
'Waste of a good apple' -Samwise Gamgee
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: [xwiki-dev] [Proposal] Document comments should not create new versions

Sergiu Dumitriu
If we decide that comments should not increment the version, then the
changes in the code are small, just set a few settings to false.
However, the problems come when dealing with versions, history, diff,
revert. Comments will still be attached objects, and working with them
will be as it is now, except that you won't be able to revert between
two comments. If we want to make the revert work differently for them,
too, then there are some other small/medium changes needed, but it
will be more like a workaround, and not a proper fix.

We could make comments a new kind of entity, that is not stored the
way normal objects are stored, but I'm totally against it. That's just
another special case (the first being tags, which needed some special
code in the core). Ideally, the comment feature should be optional,
and should be completely separable into a XAR.

On 9/4/07, Erin Schnabel <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> I don't think adding comments should increment the version, while
> adding tags, perhaps, should. Tags are an attribute of the document,
> in that they classify the document text.  Comments are not part of the
> document content, are often edited separately (by the comment author),
> and can be deleted.  The sticky issue is that attached objects are
> stored as part of the versioned content in the archive...
>
> How are changes that don't bump the version currently handled RE:
> archive? (sorry for being ignorant w/ this part..)
>

Sergiu
--
http://purl.org/net/sergiu
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fwd: [xwiki-dev] [Proposal] Document comments should not create new versions

vmassol
Administrator

On Sep 6, 2007, at 4:28 PM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:

> If we decide that comments should not increment the version, then the
> changes in the code are small, just set a few settings to false.
> However, the problems come when dealing with versions, history, diff,
> revert. Comments will still be attached objects, and working with them
> will be as it is now, except that you won't be able to revert between
> two comments. If we want to make the revert work differently for them,
> too, then there are some other small/medium changes needed, but it
> will be more like a workaround, and not a proper fix.
>
> We could make comments a new kind of entity, that is not stored the
> way normal objects are stored, but I'm totally against it. That's just
> another special case (the first being tags, which needed some special
> code in the core). Ideally, the comment feature should be optional,
> and should be completely separable into a XAR.

+1, which is why I'm reluctant to make an exception for the comments.  
I'm also not sure why it's problem that document version increases  
when a comment is added for example.

-Vincent

> On 9/4/07, Erin Schnabel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think adding comments should increment the version, while
>> adding tags, perhaps, should. Tags are an attribute of the document,
>> in that they classify the document text.  Comments are not part of  
>> the
>> document content, are often edited separately (by the comment  
>> author),
>> and can be deleted.  The sticky issue is that attached objects are
>> stored as part of the versioned content in the archive...
>>
>> How are changes that don't bump the version currently handled RE:
>> archive? (sorry for being ignorant w/ this part..)
>>

_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs