Re: PGDN content information proposal

Hi,

Regarding to versioning: here is what I thought when creating a document and
versioning.

Step 1: You choose a documenttype like an Article or a HowTo.

The document gets version 1.0

Step 2: You write your content and save it under a category.

Document gets status 'E' for still Editing.

Step 3: You request the document to be published.

Document gets status 'T' for requesT to be published.
At this point you cannot edit your document anymore! Because
It is being review by a publisher

Let's say the document is approved and published. Which make the document to
be of status 'P' and for example version 1.0.0

If you decide to change the document after it is published you have to
choose from:
1. make a large change, which makes your document version 2.0
2. make a minor change, which makes your document version 1.1

Regarding the 3 way versioning: this was just an idea. I agree that two way
versioning is also good enough.

Regards,
Gevik.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-www-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org [mailto:pgsql-www-
> owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Magnus Hagander
> Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 1:17 PM
> To: Gevik Babakhani; pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] PGDN content information proposal
>
> > 3. major version (numeric like 3)
> >
> > 4. minor version (numeric like 2
> >
> > 5. revision. (numeric like 5)
> >
> > This makes a document version of 3.2.5
>
> Not sure we actually need three-step versioning - just x.y should be
> enough in most (all?) cases. Or?
>
>
> > 6. content applies to a PostgreSQL version. (varchar) (like
> > "all pg versions", "8.x","7.x"
>
> Wouldn't it be better to have a linked table for this, and just a
> checkbox list where you can check each major version that applies? That
> will make it a lot easier to do filtering on it in the view (so you can
> have an option on pgdn to say "i only want to look at stuff that applies
> to 8.1").
> Keeping this kind of data in a varchar field leads to lots of different
> ways of writing (some write 8, some write 8.x some write 8.* etc etc),
> and it's harder to process in a reasonable way.
>
>
> > 9. status (varchar) (E for editing for published, R for rejected)
>
> Do we need to keep rejected ones at all?
>
>
> > Do we need more information about a PGDN content? Please let
> > me know what you think.
>
> How does this scheme deal with multiple versions?
> Say I (not trustworthy, remember!) cerate a document. Then Dave approves
> it for publishing. Then I edit it. At this ponit, the old version should
> be visible on the site. Then Dave approves the new version, at which
> point the old one should go away (or be kept in version history,
> probably) and the new one should be published.
>
> //Magnus
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend