Oversight of file histories including images
Closed, DeclinedPublic

Description

Author: mcdevitd

Description:
Currently only page revisions may be oversighted. However, non-public personally
identifiable or libelous images (and other media) can only be deleted. We
recently ran into this problem and could not have hidden a file without
developer help.


Version: unspecified
Severity: enhancement

bzimport added a subscriber: Unknown Object (MLST).
bzimport set Reference to bz8196.
bzimport created this task.Via LegacyDec 9 2006, 7:35 AM
bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitDec 9 2006, 10:37 PM

simsgenius069 wrote:

Oversighting images sounds good to me.

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitDec 9 2006, 10:38 PM

simsgenius069 wrote:

(In reply to comment #1)

Oversighting images sounds good to me. I thought oversighting was just for articles?

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitDec 9 2006, 11:42 PM

robchur wrote:

Please don't post "yeah, +1" style comments on bug reports. Thank you.

aaron added a comment.Via ConduitDec 21 2006, 5:05 AM

This may have to wait until live image storage is converted to FileStore format
like the archives. Otherwise the code would end up useless soon anyway.

Effeietsanders added a comment.Via ConduitDec 23 2007, 11:29 AM

Is it already possible to fix this error? I have come across a few occasions now already where there was no possibility to remove the images, although that would have been preferrable (either because of the image itself, either because of a summary during the upload, which is visible very much in the file history. Also in the log's, but that's another story I assume :) )

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitJan 8 2008, 6:42 PM

spacebirdy wrote:

*** Bug 12552 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

brion added a comment.Via ConduitJan 9 2008, 1:28 AM

Right now the image has to be deleted manually from the deleted image archive directory. This isn't very difficult, but it's a slight pain.

In theory it ought not to be too difficult to set up an alternate archive and an interface to move them over.

brion added a comment.Via ConduitJan 15 2008, 9:17 PM
  • Bug 12646 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitJan 16 2008, 7:49 PM

lar wrote:

Give that we have two dup bugs created, one by me (and honestly, I searched for bugs that might be dups of it and did not find this one) I tried to add some keywords to hopefully forestall more dups. (That didn't work, so I changed the summary to add "images", a natural thing for non devs to search on ) I suspect that there will be increasing interest in this. bug 12646 has some UI suggestions that might be useful for the implementer to review (in a nutshell, please make the UI as much like text revision oversight as possible, and maybe use the same permissions group to control who can use it)

aaron added a comment.Via ConduitApr 2 2008, 5:56 AM

Done in 32278 - r32685.

vvv added a comment.Via ConduitJul 9 2008, 3:41 PM

Actually, it isn't fixed. Please, check bug component before closing bug and don't confuse oversight extension with rev_deleted.

aaron added a comment.Via ConduitJul 9 2008, 4:50 PM

This extension was only a temporary hack until the new deletion system was made.

aaron added a comment.Via ConduitSep 18 2008, 11:42 AM

This is done with revisiondelete. It should not be done in the temporary Oversight extension. Request to enable it would be a separate bug.

bzimport added a comment.Via ConduitSep 18 2008, 3:29 PM

mike.lifeguard+bugs wrote:

(In reply to comment #13)

This is done with revisiondelete. It should not be done in the temporary
Oversight extension. Request to enable it would be a separate bug.

That would be bug 15029.

Add Comment