https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32037
Nemo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||70163
--
You are receiving this mail because:
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32037
--- Comment #7 from Michael M. ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> So in short this is bug 34580 aka bug 22783?
No. In my use case I want an edit conflict, even if I'm only prepending text
(as it could be the same text that was added by the other u
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32037
Nemo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||federicol...@tiscali.it
See Also|
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32037
Liangent changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||liang...@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Lian
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32037
Michael M. changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||listenle...@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32037
--- Comment #3 from Krinkle 2012-09-02 20:29:42 UTC ---
CC-ing Catrope and Reedy for their insight, I don't know the API well enough.
If revision IDs is technically superior / more logical (internally) then go for
it.
On the other hand, in def
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32037
--- Comment #2 from Umherirrender 2012-08-31
14:10:37 UTC ---
Timestamp is very old MediaWiki way for this, since the revision id exist, that
id should be used.
The revision id of the latest revision is stored within page table, that makes
it
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32037
Krinkle changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||krinklem...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Kr
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32037
Mark A. Hershberger changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|Unprioritized |Normal
Severity|normal
