Hello comrades,
I've run into a challenge too interesting to keep to myself ;) My
immediate goal is to prototype an "offline" wikipedia, similar to Kiwix,
which allows the end-user to make edits and synchronize them back to a
central repository like enwiki.
The catch is, how to insert these
On 17/07/12 00:22, Adam Wight wrote:
> Hello comrades,
> I've run into a challenge too interesting to keep to myself ;) My
> immediate goal is to prototype an "offline" wikipedia, similar to Kiwix,
> which allows the end-user to make edits and synchronize them back to a
> central repository like e
On 07/16/2012 04:10 PM, Platonides wrote:
On 17/07/12 00:22, Adam Wight wrote:
Hello comrades,
I've run into a challenge too interesting to keep to myself ;) My
immediate goal is to prototype an "offline" wikipedia, similar to Kiwix,
which allows the end-user to make edits and synchronize them
On 17/07/12 01:49, Adam Wight wrote:
>> Actually, the revision table allows for non-linear development (it
>> stores from which version you edited the article). You could even make
>> to "win" a version different than the one with the latest timestamp (by
>> changing page_rev) one.
>> You will need
>> Actually, the revision table allows for non-linear development (it
>> stores from which version you edited the article). You could even
>> make to "win" a version different than the one with the latest
>> timestamp (by changing page_rev) one.
>> You will need to change the way of viewing hist
>
>
> This is all a fantastic idea. Distributing Wikipedia in a fashion similar
> to git will make it a lot easier to use in areas where Internet connections
> are not so common.
>
> I wonder could this sort of feature be implemented in the existing Kiwix
> codebase? That would be ideal I think.
On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 4:32 AM, Derric Atzrott <
datzr...@alizeepathology.com> wrote:
> >> Actually, the revision table allows for non-linear development (it
> >> stores from which version you edited the article). You could even
> >> make to "win" a version different than the one with the latest
On 07/16/2012 04:49 PM, Adam Wight wrote:
> Cool! That's a nice solution because it's transparent to the end-user's
> system. However, if we use the current schema as you're describing, we
> would have to reconcile rev_id conflicts during the merge. This seems
> like a nasty problem if the merge
wi...@wikidev.net:
> On 07/16/2012 04:49 PM, Adam Wight wrote:
> > Cool! That's a nice solution because it's transparent to the end-user's
> > system. However, if we use the current schema as you're describing, we
> > would have to reconcile rev_id conflicts during the merge. This seems
> > like
On 2012-07-17 07:32, Derric Atzrott wrote:
This is all a fantastic idea. Distributing Wikipedia in a fashion
similar to git will make it a lot easier to use in areas where
Internet connections are not so common.
It always surprises me when people express enthusiasm for
this kind of idea, since
>> This is all a fantastic idea. Distributing Wikipedia in a fashion
>> similar to git will make it a lot easier to use in areas where
>> Internet connections are not so common.
>
>It always surprises me when people express enthusiasm for
>this kind of idea, since my instinct assumption is the ex
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 7:25 AM, Derric Atzrott
wrote:
>>> This is all a fantastic idea. Distributing Wikipedia in a fashion
>>> similar to git will make it a lot easier to use in areas where
>>> Internet connections are not so common.
>>
>>It always surprises me when people express enthusiasm for
>It's really not. Things that are (relatively) simple in the
>database tend to require walking the entire revision
>tree in Git in order to figure the same data out.
>
>Git is awesome for software development, but trying
>to use it as an article development tool is really a bad
>solution in search
> >It's really not. Things that are (relatively) simple in the
> >database tend to require walking the entire revision
> >tree in Git in order to figure the same data out.
> >
> >Git is awesome for software development, but trying
> >to use it as an article development tool is really a bad
> >solu
Excerpts from Adam Wight's message of Mon Jul 16 18:22:22 -0400 2012:
> Hello comrades,
> I've run into a challenge too interesting to keep to myself ;) My
> immediate goal is to prototype an "offline" wikipedia, similar to Kiwix,
> which allows the end-user to make edits and synchronize them ba
15 matches
Mail list logo
