This seems like a basic need. This should be the default (or at least configurable) method to deal with updated content. Maybe a "Moderate Revisions" checkbox under the 'Publishing Options' in /admin/content/types

Comments

bsherwood’s picture

bsherwood commented

*bump*

Any info (either way) on this?

dirtabulous’s picture

dirtabulous commented

I'll second that. Most probably make due without this functionality, but seems like it would be useful to a lot of people if it were included.

maartenvg’s picture

maartenvg commented

What do you mean with "revision moderation"? Because it is already possible to restore revisions, for example. Or do you mean the complete module http://drupal.org/project/revision_moderation?

ultimateboy’s picture

ultimateboy commented

specmav definitely meant adding revision_moderation.module, and I could not agree more. If we are going to have comment moderation, we should have node moderation as well.

jstoller’s picture

jstoller
he/him
commented
Status: Active » Closed (duplicate)

This request is a duplicate of #218755: Support revisions in different states.

In my humble opinion, this is one of the biggest holes in Drupal's feature set.

bsherwood’s picture

bsherwood commented
Status: Closed (duplicate) » Postponed (maintainer needs more info)

@ jstoller: After reviewing the above issue, I am setting this to 'active (needs more info)'. This is because your request seems more in depth and feature-rich than my issue.

While we both would like to see some form of revision moderation, my idea is much more simple. From reading your issue, it seems you would like a complex overhaul of how nodes are shown to the public. This. to me, sounds much more complex than showing the original node until the edited node is approved. (i.e using multiple 'states')

I do like your idea, I just think yours is more complex. Maybe my issue can be realized, then grow into a more robust moderation scheme, such as yours.

Also Drupal core maintainers are extremely picky as to what gets into "core". A simple solution might be easier to persuade them, then to code a more complex solution.

jstoller’s picture

jstoller
he/him
commented

@ specmav: While I did provide an example of how I would like to use this capability in my feature request, the request itself is no more complex then what you propose. I want the ability to assign multiple states to different revisions of the same node, with an understanding that the published revision is not necessarily the most current revision.

A minimal implementation would have just those two states—published and current. This allows me to edit a published node, without changing the revision seen by the public, until someone with the appropriate permissions decides to approve the current revision for publication. This simple change would make me very happy and is likely all most people will ever need. That being said, I suspect there elegant ways to add this feature to Core which would support even more possible states. Perhaps even an arbitrary number of states. As an example use case, I propose you might have a node with a "published" revision, another revision that is "pending approval" for publication, and a still more current "draft" revision that is not yet ready to be submitted to moderators. This is all academic, however, and is merely meant to inform any potential implementations. Ultimately, how the feature is used once available (like my idea of a virtual staging site) will be up to individual site admins and module developers. Right now I'm just looking to get the basic node moderation capability in there.

I still think this is a duplicate of my issue—#218755: Support revisions in different states—but I don't want to belabor the point, so I will let others decide.

bsherwood’s picture

bsherwood commented
Status: Postponed (maintainer needs more info) » Closed (duplicate)

@jstoller:

After thinking about it for some time, I have come to the conclusion that your idea seems more complete. Adding the revision moderation module (as it is now) to "core" seems kind of hackish. I will set this issue as a duplicate.

See: #218755: Support revisions in different states