2009-12-28 19:03:39 +01:00
|
|
|
Currently, new comments are named with an incrementing ID (comment_N). So
|
|
|
|
|
if a wiki has multiple disconnected servers, and comments are made to the
|
|
|
|
|
same page on both, merging is guaranteed to result in conflicts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I propose avoiding such merge problems by naming a comment with a sha1sum
|
|
|
|
|
of its (full) content. Keep the incrementing ID too, so there is an
|
|
|
|
|
-ordering. And so duplicate comments are allowed..)
|
|
|
|
|
So, "comment_N_SHA1".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: The comment body will need to use meta title in the case where no
|
|
|
|
|
title is specified, to retain the current behavior of the default title
|
|
|
|
|
being "comment N".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What do you think [[smcv]]? --[[Joey]]
|
2009-12-30 21:41:17 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> I had to use md5sums, as sha1sum perl module may not be available and I
|
|
|
|
|
> didn't want to drag it in. But I think that's ok; this doesn't need to be
|
|
|
|
|
> cryptographically secure and even the chances of being able to
|
|
|
|
|
> purposefully cause a md5 collision and thus an undesired merge conflict
|
|
|
|
|
> are quite low since it modifies the input text and adds a date stamp to
|
|
|
|
|
> it.
|
|
|
|
|
>
|
|
|
|
|
> Anyway, I think it's good, [[[done]] --[[Joey]]
|
