Add "raw", "print", and "revert" links to the "info" action page.
Unlike the behaviour in version 1.5, in version 1.6 the revision history (action "info") has no more a link to revert to an older page revision. Instead, you will have to "view" the older revision, and then select "revert" from the drop down menu. While this might be acceptable for "print" and maybe also for "raw", it is not acceptable for "revert": It makes restoring of older page revisions somewhat more complicated and less intuitive.
This is exactly the contrary of what MediaWiki did. They used to do it like we in 1.6: first recall the older revision, then edit it in order to revert to that revision. They now implemented something like we used to have in 1.5: in the revision history now there are links "revert to this revision".
I think it is more than enough to complicate the life of everyday editors in a wiki with things like CAPTCHAs for the sake of anti-vandalism, we should not make it complicated to act against vandalism, too.
There should be a link "revert to this revision" for every revision in the revision history.
The problem was that all those action links were GET requests in 1.5. So once some bot reached info action page, it triggered lots of actions, putting a high load onto the wiki server (and if ACLs allowed revert and delete for anon users, havoc broke lose). I tried to refactor this into some new form, but combining the diff selection FORM and using POST for each revision didn't work, thus I removed it.
I appreciate using POST instead of GET. Maybe we need to communicate this change, like any change in the UI, better to our users, though.
Most change is documented in docs/CHANGES file. -- ThomasWaldmann 2007-11-11 13:47:48
BTW, IIRC we didn't have any spam here since we switched to 1.6.
wikiwikiweb.de was switched 2007-11-01 and spam stopped there around that time (maybe activating textchas was a little later). -- ThomasWaldmann 2007-11-11 13:47:48
I would appreciate to have the old, easier revision-revert back. I administrate a fistful Wiki-Installations for plain non-technical Users and is it hard enough to reassure time and again 'no you cannot destroy anything.. here.. you can go back and .. start again'. One step more confuses and unsettels them. -- MelaEckenfels 2008-03-16 19:20:57
mbayer->Johannes: I don't think this Feature Request can be rejected just by saying that GET must not change the data base. While the latter is true, I don't see why this feature can be implemented only and only by a GET link that modifies the data base. Please don't confuse abstract features with a specific implementation. -- MartinBayer 2008-03-18 23:25:06
The feature request is explicitly asking for a "link" which isn't possible. A button could be added, feel free to implement. -- JohannesBerg 2008-03-19 00:31:48
Don't be so narrow-minded. One could think, for instance, of a link that calls only a confirmation page (maybe showing the version one is about to revert to, too), where you than have a button to confirm the revert. Technically, only that button would call the POST request that changes the date base, but from a user's point of view the "revert" link in the revision history would have been restored. Plus, one could use this redesign to implement ../CommentsForReverts at the same time, resulting to a user experience not unlike the one for deleting pages. -- MartinBayer 2008-03-19 15:12:51
Mock-up revision history |
|
Mock-up revert action |
|
I got back the "revert" link in the info page adding this line:
actions.append(render_action(_('revert',formatted=False), {'action': 'revert', 'rev': '%d' % rev}))in /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/MoinMoin/action/info.py at line 110. In unified diff format:
--- infooriginal.py 2008-03-18 20:32:49.000000000 +0100
+++ info.py 2008-03-18 20:33:35.000000000 +0100
@@ -107,6 +107,7 @@
actions.append(render_action(_('view', formatted=False), {'action': 'show'}))
else:
actions.append(render_action(_('view', formatted=False), {'action': 'recall', 'rev': '%d' % rev}))
+ actions.append(render_action(_('revert',formatted=False), {'action': 'revert', 'rev': '%d' % rev}))
if count == 0:
rchecked = ' checked="checked"'
lchecked = ''That patch will not work in 1.7 since there revert will check that it is invoked via POST. -- JohannesBerg 2008-03-19 11:52:42
Just finally migrated a busy intra wiki from 1.5 to 1.6 and was very disappointed to see revert gone from the info page. It was so good in cleaning up after larger mishaps with xmlrpc scripts or just busy but clumsy users when you were able to see which version you need to revert to directly from the info page. Now this feels like my Nokia phone where I have to click many times to be able to do anything. Otherwise 1.5 to 1.6 feels like a leap foward, thanks. 
-- fen 2024-04-28
Hmm, why not using the revert link on top of the page? And why don't you use the recent 1.8.1 version? 
-- ReimarBauer 2008-12-26 21:08:06
Well when having to revert bulk of pages from stray xmlrpc based bulk update or after a busy but clumsy user it was very quick to see from info page (from sizes or updaters) which version you had to go back to and with one click revert, now initial impression is that this is 3-4x slower from UI perspective. Feels like regression in UI. What comes to using 1.6, we are already happy that we were able to get over 1.5 to 1.6 migration (markup changes with hours of running migration scripts and API changes that affected our custom extensions) so going to 1.8 on same hop would have been pushing our luck too far. Will go forward when things have stabilized. Thanks again. -- fen 2024-04-28