[development] Requiring node revisions

[Jim Riggs]

I have to agree with Larry.  Of all my sites, only very rarely do I  
ever use revisions at all.  I don't use them, need them, or want any  
of the overhead required for storing and maintaining them.

-1 for requiring them always.

+1 if we default to using revisions but provide some means of saying  
"revisions off" as Larry describes.


On 7 Jun, 2007, at 13:16, Larry Garfield wrote:

>
> On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 10:58:03 -0700, Derek Wright  
> <drupal at dwwright.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2007, at 6:30 AM, Moshe Weitzman wrote:
>>
>>> yes, i think the time has come for automatically tracking
>>> revisions. +1
>>
>> +1 to always requiring revisions (did anyone honestly expect Mr.
>> Revision Control to think otherwise?). ;)
>>
>> so, next step: diff.module in core?  if we're going to force
>> revisions all the time, shouldn't core have a better UI for
>> displaying them?
>>
>> -derek
>
> There are cases where I don't want revisions at all.  Maybe I don't  
> want a paper-trail. :-)
>
> If the code is considerably simpler if revisions are required, then  
> I would say we should also consider it a requirement that we have  
> auto-trimming of revisions in core, per node type, (only keep the  
> last X revisions of node type Y), and document that setting it to 0  
> will have "no revisions saved".  That becomes the new alternative  
> way of saying "revisions off", but has cleaner code.
>
> --Larry Garfield
>