Hi all, It occurred to me whilst using TWiki to track the state of my expenses at work that I would like to be able to force a new revision of a topic. This way I could say:

---

Revision 1.1: For Period End 28/02/00:

• New claims:
  • receipt 10

• Unclaimed receipts:
  • receipt 11
  • receipt 12

• Bounced claims:
  • receipt 2

• Paid claims:
  • receipt 1

---

Revision 2.0: For Period End 15/03/00:

• New claims:
  • receipt 11

• Unclaimed receipts:
  • receipt 12

• Bounced claims:
  • receipt 2

• Paid claims:
  • receipt 10

---

This way, the document only shows the current situation but I can go back in history to see where I was in my workings at any given checkpoint. At present, I cannot checkpoint if I work on the same document within the hour.

---

ForceNewRevision has other, perhaps more general uses as well. On project teams we often work on a document (1.1, 1.2, 1.3) until we reach a milestone such as showing it to a client. At this point we bump the major version number (2.0) and continue working (2.1, 2.2, 2.3).

Both requirements could be met with a tick box that said IsMajorRevision.

Thoughts?

-- MartinCleaver - 30 Mar 2001

I actually had some thought towards removing the major version number, as it only has implementation context with RCS (and CVS). Of course it could be replaced with a more generic tagging system based on arbitary meta information.

-- NicholasLee - 30 Mar 2001

I'm interested in applying various symbolic tags to topics, e.g Inspected, Verified, Rev-, Rev-A, etc. Along the lines of rcs -NInspected mytopic.txt. I could then see which version of a topic had been inspected for example. Entire webs could be 'released' (rcs -NRev-C *.txt). Finally, you could set up to browse a certain revision (e.g. you could view Rev-A of all topics on a web even when you are at Rev-C).

-- DaveAlsup - 03 Nov 2001

More and more often, as I edit TWiki pages, I have the desire to "force" a revision. What I mean is, I want to save what I've currently got on the page as a numbered revision, and changes I make from that point on should be part of the next revision.

In the normal course of events, even releasing the edit lock doesn't do that, I have to wait one hour for the timeout. (Testing again now, just to confirm -- yup, even made sure to hit the edit button rather than the back button -- hmm wonder if it would work if I closed this browser window and started editing again in a new browser window? -- nope, I even had to login again to edit this page, but it did not increment the version number.)

I'm describing this as an RFE, but I haven't really searched -- perhaps there is already a patch or a duplicate request. (Or maybe it is something I can easily do in my customized templates?)

If it's implemented, it should clearly be an option (IMHO), and if a checkpoint save is implemented, it should be an option on that as well as the normal save.

There are some workarounds:

• wait 1 hour
• set up two user accounts and start new edits under the alternate user account
• find the place in the TWiki code (or configuration -- I might have seen it there) to disable the 1 hour timer -- not a terrible option except that I suspect we will get too many revisions (most of them not really desired) -- I wonder if there is a difference in behavior (that could be exploited) between hitting the browser back button and clicking on edit to resume editing?? -- Nah, I don't think we want to go there -- there are enough other issues related to that (like losing your edits under certain circumstances, or whatever).

Oops, I should have left the Rfe off the page name and just handled it in the TopicClassification table.

It is not a terribly high priority request, even for me, just something that would be nice to have. (I can, after all, do something else for an hour if I really feel compelled to have a revision.)

-- RandyKramer - 28 Feb 2003

Moved above posting from RfeForceARevision and removed that topic.

-- PeterThoeny - 03 Mar 2003

patch available to force new revision available at ForceNewRevisionCheckBox

-- WillNorris - 31 Oct 2004