BookStackApp
Revision # on page revisions
On revision page better to display the revision number ( 79) and not the ordinal number of the record ( 6) like an attachment screen. For example, i can see revision ( 6) but if i click Preview i can see revision ( 79). Better if i can show this number ( 79) instead ( 6). A similar situation with all revision numbering.
Working with revisions is always a scrupulous process. The correct display of the revision number will always give a transparent understanding of the deletion or restoration process.
Thanks for the suggestion @dean-mrack,
The current revision number was actually a later addition to BookStack, the idea being to give a more friendly page-relative revision count number instead of database ID. The database ID remains in URLs for backwards compatibility & ensured stability thanks to the uniqueness.
We could expose the original revision ID in the list but I think this will likely just cause more confusion, when shown alongside the existing page-relative number. The described benefit "The correct display of the revision number will always give a transparent understanding of the deletion or restoration process." is not really a strong enough reason to overcome the added confusion in implementing this change, especially in what is a relatively low-traffic feature.
First, I really like the bookstack. Graceful, aesthetically pleasing, fast and MarkDown) Thanks a lot.
let me add. Wiki is good for that, that it allows you to make changes without regard to possible loss of content, which gives the author or authors confidence in the safety of his work. For me, this is an important argument in choosing a system. I am ready to put up with the fact that the page version numbering does not start with 1, but I would not like to be mistaken because I did not remember correctly which revision number on Page Revision and on Detals. For example on pix. Test page version 3 is actually 122 on detail page. Some pages may have hundreds of revisions.
The best way for me show the absolute revision number. Or show the sequence number of the record and the revision number, like in githab ) actually git doesn't show the number at all.
Also to consider as part of this, revision numbering can jump when non-revision-creating updates are made as per #4780.