We've generally blanket-rejected these requests in the past.

Might not be a bad idea to be able to handle the "oops" factor gracefully, though.

thedukeofwaltham wrote:

What do you mean?

And, for the record, I do not like the sound of "blanket-rejected". It indicates a lack of willingness to examine the specific proposal on its merits. The strictest limit, one hour, would allow for all the benefits and would completely exclude any possibility of abuse (RfAs and RfArs have been cited mostly); I could even say that some misunderstandings might be avoided by editors changing a potentially offensive summary immediately afterwards, regretting their quick temper.

The proposed mechanism has been implemented in most online forum systems (such as phpBB) postings and has proven its usefulness and safety for years.

dev wrote:

Just an FYI, I've actually been working on an extension that'd allow this to happen, it needs a bit of a cleanup, and I need some sleep, so I'll post it online sometime soon.

dev wrote:

Patch to introduce PageHistoryTool hook

(In reply to comment #4)

Just an FYI, I've actually been working on an extension that'd allow this to
happen, it needs a bit of a cleanup, and I need some sleep, so I'll post it
online sometime soon.

Current code is online at http://dev.nigelj.com/mw/ it still needs a little bit of fixing, but it's nearly there.

Note, it requires the patch attached to work (n.b. changelog entry and hooks.txt edit removed in order to apply cleanly).

attachment PageHistoryTool-hook.patch ignored as obsolete

dev wrote:

Correct patch

Oops sorry folks, the last patch added an extra hook arguement that is by no way needed, here is the correct one.

attachment PageHistoryTool-hook.patch ignored as obsolete

Nigel, I think a better (more generic) name should be used for the hook. Other than that, I find the idea useful.

dev wrote:

(In reply to comment #7)

Nigel, I think a better (more generic) name should be used for the hook. Other
than that, I find the idea useful.

Yeah, I agree whole heartedly.

Naming it SpecialFixsummary would be a better choice (which I've now done locally).

dev wrote:

Rebased patch w/ hooks.txt documentation

I've rebased the patch, just need to finish updating the extension etc, hopefully do that this weekend.

attachment mediawiki-pagehistorytool.patch ignored as obsolete

ayg wrote:

The added hook seems relatively reasonable, independent of the merit of the request that this bug actually makes. Use tabs, though, not spaces. And you're missing documentation for the PageHistory object (first parameter passed) in hooks.txt.

I think the basic idea is worth considering, but an hour is far too long. Five minutes should be a maximum. Anything more would be too confusing, in my opinion.

Keywords: patch, need-review

dev wrote:

Rebased patch (r39564 w/ updated hooks.txt documentation and tabulation instead of spaces

(In reply to comment #10)

The added hook seems relatively reasonable, independent of the merit of the
request that this bug actually makes. Use tabs, though, not spaces. And
you're missing documentation for the PageHistory object (first parameter
passed) in hooks.txt.

Done in this update

(In reply to comment #11)

I think the basic idea is worth considering, but an hour is far too long. Five
minutes should be a maximum. Anything more would be too confusing, in my
opinion.

I agree, I plan in my next update of the extension to allow it to be customized.

Unfortunately I got distracted with other more important issues this weekend hopefully I'll be back onto this, this week.

(For reference, this hook allows the extension to hook in next to Rollback etc)

Attached:

ayg wrote:

Looking over the code, I think that a more comprehensive hook to replace the current PageHistoryLineEnding hook (while still keeping that for backward compatibility) would be a good idea. Currently we collapse everything into a string before we pass it to the hook, which is stupid. Instead, we should ditch the $s variable, and have the ending be something like this:

$ret = null;
if( !wfRunHooks( 'EndPageHistoryLine', $this, $row, $next, &$arr, &$ret ) ) {
return $ret;
}
return '<li>' . implode( ' ', $arr ) . "</li>\n";

This still has some issues:

• Do we guarantee what numeric index various array elements have, or what? There are like ten or twenty different items going into this line, which makes for a really complicated single hook.
• Imploding on spaces doesn't help with things like $tools that should really be passed as arrays themselves.

I don't think adding one extra hook for every widget on the line we want to be able to modify is a good idea. Is there any way to elegantly and simply expose *all* of this info to hooks?

Issues raised in comment 14 need to be addressed.

nolan.j.white wrote:

*** Bug 20511 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Created attachment 6944
Empty diff table alignment in Firefox

Attached:

sorry, image was for anther bug.

sumanah wrote:

Changing keywords since Aryeh did review the patch.

This very clearly isn't just "related" to bug 10105, but depends on it; this is merely modifying the default rights set for the functionality requested in bug 10105, so discussion should remain there.

Note that https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RevisionCommentSupplement provides similar functionality without the dependency on bug 10105

Other reasons for allowing changing an edit summary:

1. Not all content models support dummy edit. for example it's not possible to do a edit without changing the page's rendering in Wikibase. (which I think it's the most important reason)
2. If others views a list of selected edits, for example using a tag filter, dummy
3. Dummy edit is only a (bad) hack as it doesn't directly resolve the problem.

Change 296630 had a related patch set uploaded (by Sethakill):
[WIP] Allow users to change edit summary

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/296630