[ckan-dev] moderated edits c(r)ep. http://trac.ckan.org/ticket/1129

[Rufus Pollock]

On 8 May 2011 11:58, David Raznick <kindly at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello
>
> I have just got slightly carried away and made a delicious new crep.
>
> It is a bit rough around the edges and could do with some (community) tidy
> up, but is thorough enough.

This is great.

There was extensive discussion of how to do pending 'edits' in
relation to vdm last summer on okfn-help list [1]

[1]: See e.g. http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/okfn-help/2010-August/000770.html
and subsequent threads.

I'm personally of the view that this fits very naturally with the
proposed new 'changeset' vdm model. In that model it is natural and
relatively easy to have changesets that have been 'created' but not
'applied' to the 'working copy' (i.e. continuity objects).

This is more along the lines of your option 1.

You don't seem to favour this :-) but I'm not sure I understand some
of pros/cons, for example:

> No easy way to remake the dictized packages historically or if there is an there a change in the way we represent packages, i.e schema changes.

But why would you need to do this (you could just leave the old items,
no)? I guess there would possibly be some pending items at the moment
you did the migration which you would need to migrate (depends on what
the migration did) but migrating these is no harder than doing the
full migration (and possibly simpler).

General comment: If we are thinking of doing this sort of thing we
should probably look at overall changes to vdm (and think these
through). Updating vdm [1] (whether to changeset or just simplifying
current model) would likely make this change easier.

Rufus

[1]: http://trac.ckan.org/ticket/1077