[development] Requiring node revisions

Frando (Franz Heinzmann) frando at xcite-online.de
Fri Jun 8 17:07:49 UTC 2007

Larry Garfield schrieb:
> On Friday 08 June 2007, Derek Wright wrote:
>> I think we should always keep all revisions by default (even if we
>> hide most of the UI to see/use them), and make site admins who think
>> they want them off go out of their way to prune/disable them.  The
>> performance cost is negligible except for sites that care enough
>> about performance to know their way around a few admin UI screens.
>> The potential usability benefits of being able to say "oh yeah, just
>> enable core's diff.module and grant some revision permissions to your
>> editor role, and you'll be able to see all the changes anyone ever
>> made to any of the nodes on your site".
>> -Derek
> That may be fine for a default setup, but if I for whatever reason *don't* 
> want revisions saved (does it matter why?) for a given node type, I should be 
> able to make that happen without scheduling a block of time every Friday 
> afternoon to go through and manually delete them

Cron does it for you. We'd just had to add a content-type specific 
setting "don't keep old revisions", and then cron could just delete all 
revisions that aren't active for these content types. No need to do 
anything manually.

> and I should be able to do 
> it without dipping into contrib.  That is a complete and total waste of my 
> time.
See above. It could be one setting, as is now.

So, big +1 from me for requiring node revisions, as long as the UI stays 
simple (or becomes even simpler) for sites that don't want to care about 
revisions, and as long as there is an optional hook_cron implentation to 
discard old revisions, again for sites that don't want to care about 

-- frando

More information about the development mailing list