From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josef Weidendorfer Subject: Re: Now What? Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 00:26:16 +0100 Message-ID: <200511040026.16879.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> References: <200511032317.15393.Josef.Weidendorfer@gmx.de> <7vwtjp9wgc.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Nov 04 00:27:24 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EXoTP-00045q-8Q for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:26:23 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030526AbVKCX0U (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2005 18:26:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030504AbVKCX0U (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2005 18:26:20 -0500 Received: from mailout1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de ([131.159.0.18]:31966 "EHLO mailout1.informatik.tu-muenchen.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030526AbVKCX0U (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Nov 2005 18:26:20 -0500 Received: from dhcp-3s-40.lrr.in.tum.de (dhcp-3s-40.lrr.in.tum.de [131.159.35.40]) by mail.in.tum.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCFAA27DD for ; Fri, 4 Nov 2005 00:26:18 +0100 (MET) To: git@vger.kernel.org User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 In-Reply-To: <7vwtjp9wgc.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new/sophie/sophos at mailrelay2.informatik.tu-muenchen.de Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thursday 03 November 2005 23:51, Junio C Hamano wrote: > > I wonder if Git is the best SCM for a Wiki, as you want per-file > > revisions in a Wiki: when reverting a page to a previous version, > > this should not modify other pages. > > Sorry, I do not see why per-file revisioning is mandatory. > Wouldn't revert or edit of a single page be just a new commit of > the new whole tree with just a single path changed? You are right. Obviously I should get some sleep ;-) As you said, by adding a new commit for every page revert, you get a really messy history. If there is vandalism in a Wiki, wouldn't it be better to be able to get rid of spam versions of one Wiki page? > In fact, wouldn't svnwiki already does the same thing? Probably. I don't know it. Josef