Support for Drupal 7 is ending on 5 January 2025—it’s time to migrate to Drupal 10! Learn about the many benefits of Drupal 10 and find migration tools in our resource center....do I need say more?
There's this issue #1245508: Issue summaries: Allow outdated attached files to be hidden/replaced/flagged., that suggests that we (optionally) allow patches to be obsoleted by others during upload:
If this happens, then an interdiff between those files should be generated and attached to the comment.
| Comment | File | Size | Author |
|---|---|---|---|
| patch_obsolete.png | 3.76 KB | klonos |
Comments
Comment #1
klonos...related: #1955854-10: Group together files posted in the same revision.
Comment #2
dwwI was also thinking of something like the node revisions UI where you can select any two patch files and request an interdiff between them. I don't think that obsoleting a patch necessarily means you want to see that interdiff, but I suppose it's a reasonable default case to provide. Folks can ignore it (or there could be an option to hide it) in the minority of cases where it's not really the interdiff you want to see.
Moving to a more appropriate queue (although the module/project is about to be renamed, see #1964092: Rename project and namespace to 'Extended File Field')
Comment #3
dwwp.s. I re-titled because this should have nothing to do with "comments." It's about any two patch files attached to the same file field (since that's how D7 project_issue now deals with all of this).
Comment #4
jthorson CreditAttribution: jthorson commentedComment #5
klonosThe reason we should provide the obsoletion checkbox feature is because we need to do a couple of other additional things with old files besides just providing an interdiff:
- Hide them in the "Show all files" part of the table.
- Visually indicate that old files were replaced with newer versions (strike-through?). People should be looking at the new versions - older versions are only kept around for reference/historical reasons.
The second reason is really important IMHO, because there are numerous cases where I've seen d.o newcomers speed-read trough long issues top to bottom and try patches sequentially as they come across them, complaining that "the patch in #5 does not apply" - "Of course dude, there's like a dozen more patches after that one and you should be looking at the most recent one in #305!"
If we decide to implement my proposal in #1955854-10: Group together files posted in the same revision., that would be a nice way to "hide" it from the table (as in not dedicating a whole row for it) but keep it available for those that appreciate/require interdiffs when reviewing patches.
Comment #6
dwwWe're pretty off topic from this issue, so I don't want to re-re-re-explain the proposal for how we're handling hidden/obsolete files. I'll just update some appropriate summaries instead and hopefully you'll read that and stop re-re-re-re-asking this question. ;)
Thanks,
-Derek
Comment #7
klonosI'm honestly sorry Derek. Seems I'm missing something or got something wrong. Not my intention.
Comment #8
dwwNo worries. I'm not angry. Just going to save my keystrokes for a more appropriate place to explain how this is all working now. ;)
Comment #9
mgiffordSo I guess we just need to make a patch for this... Attaching related issue.
Comment #10
webchickI can't really see anyone coming to take this on given all of the comments so far are basically an argument, so I've closed this one in favour of a fresh start at #2233521: Auto-generate interdiffs.