robchur wrote:

1. There are good reasons to keep the edits separate, when reviewing changes,

etc. and to make reverting individual change sets easier

2. Disk space is not an issue

jeluf wrote:

• Disk space is much cheaper than CPU.
• Edit comments would get lost, or loose their context.
• Permanent links will break.
• Processing of complaints about explicit language or similar in an article will become much harder.

> Closing as WONTFIX.

ayg wrote:

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 7062 ***

emery.denuccio wrote:

Ok then, perhaps Wikimedia has virtually limitless resources because of its
success, but plenty of people use the MediaWiki software and might find it a
useful feature, optional or otherwise.

It shouldn't have any real impact on CPU, it just means merging new edits with
the previous instead of creating a new edit in the event that it's from the same
user.

Permanent links won't break in the sense of being "broken". It's more like when
a user edits his post in a forum. You wouldn't call a link to the post broken
just because the user corrected a mistake or changed his mind about something.

Processing complaints wouldn't be harder, that's why I'm only proposing the
merging of consecutive edits from the same user. If he vandalizes a page then
someone reverts it back that breaks his sequence of edits making them permanent
in history.

I realize this is somewhat of a fundamental change, but I think it makes sense.

This could also be implemented much more easily, and compatibly, by simply
having it a different optional way to output a page's history. That is, the
consecutive edits get shown as one user-edit which perhaps has a link to show
all the edits that encompasses.

ayg wrote:

If you think it would be a good idea to have edits *visually* merged when
viewing page histories, open a separate bug for that. They aren't going to be
merged in the database. And if you insist on reopening something, please make
it bug 7062, which deals with the same thing and predates this one.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 7062 ***

emery.denuccio wrote:

Will do. If saved disk space wouldn't even be beneficial then that is a better idea.

emery.denuccio wrote:

See bug #7904.

Change #1236377 had a related patch set uploaded (by Eileen; author: Eileen):

[wikimedia/fundraising/SmashPig@master] Ignore 'Other' (T9900 code) from TRR files

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1236377

Change #1236377 merged by jenkins-bot:

[wikimedia/fundraising/SmashPig@master] Ignore 'Other' (T9900 code) from TRR files

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1236377