[dokuwiki] Re: huge attic
- From: Anthony Chivetta <achivetta@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: dokuwiki@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 22:01:00 -0600
* Christoph Schindler <hop@xxxxxxxxxxxx> [2005-11-09 00:30:40 +0100]:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 08:26:09PM +0100, Redeeman wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-11-08 at 11:20 +0100, Dr. Martin Meggle-Freund wrote:
> > > Typically, users hit the save button a number of times during an edit
> > > session instead of using the preview option.
> > >
> > > Is there a way to reduce the amount of data in the attic by merging
> > > changes made by the same user in such subsequent edit sessions?
> > >
> > > I would be interested to know how others are dealing with this issue.
>
> What about using rcs? The complete history of a page would be contained
> in one file and between versions only the differences would be stored.
What about subversion? There is a python wiki called subwiki that is
experimenting with this concept. Using subversion would abstract the versioning
and page storage away from dokuwiki. It would also allow for direct file
modification (by scripts, people not using the wiki interface etc.) that could
be
correctly represented in the change log. It could also allow for the operation
of additional interfaces into the same data (clustering, different wiki versions
(easier upgrading)). Finally, the svn:externals feature would allow for the
direct inclusion of documentation from a source code repository into the wiki.
>
> One of stated features of dokuwiki is that pages are stored as plain
> text files, so that you can get to them when the server is down.. I
> don't know if that has to hold for the archived versions as well. (Andi,
> maybe you could comment on this?)
Subversion would solve this problem in a much more elegant way than rcs (or our
current system). Because the subversion repository is/can be stored in another
location the files still remain accessible (svn co url://repos) yet subversion
can store files in a delta format keeping space requirements down.
> If so, one could probably offer both features without too much
> programming effort.
>
I think if we can put all the storage backed code into one 'module' then it
would be very easy to write a number of different storage engines that could be
selected in the conf file. If this is currently nearly the case then even
better.
> > i simply use the preview option, its what its there for..
> >
> > i dont think there should be anything to clean it up, dokuwiki already
> > has the preview feature, if people do not use it they are using it
> > wrong, unless they want the many revisions
>
> Well... I guess that would work... not.
>
> > >
> > > Regards, Martin
>
> bye!hop
Anthony Chivetta
--
DokuWiki mailing list - more info at
http://wiki.splitbrain.org/wiki:mailinglist
Other related posts:
